Game ball and Goats.

[steelreserve]

But that isn't what they did at all. They schemed to take away the TEs and "made" the Pats take the underneath throw to Edelman/Amendola. Hogan didn't do a blessed thing. Gronk had two big plays. That is better than a lot of teams do. Bennett didn't do anything.

They didn't lose because of soft pass coverage. They lost because the offense couldn't convert 6 or 8 trips (I lost count) into Pats territory into TDs. They lost because for the second week in a row, the run defense had breakdowns at the point of attack. When Heyward goes out, it is just like it was with Aaron Smith - the run defense is suddenly very vulnerable.

If Bellicheck had schemed that hard to take away big plays to the Steelers all-world TEs that's all anyone would be talking about. The Steelers do it, except for 2-3 plays, and all anyone can say is that the defense was vanilla and soft.

Well, I don't think our defensive scheme helped us, let me put it that way. The results were a little better than we usually have against Brady, but by no means spectacular.

The TEs "only" had two big plays, but guess what, they had two big plays. Both resulted in touchdowns. It's not as if when the defense works works works works works fails, that means it worked. We gave up nearly 30 points and most of the time that means you lose. Especially with your backup QB, who you have to account for in your own planning - yes, he IS going to stall a few drives and miss some opportunities. We played the safe strategy and it was not a winning strategy, they were still able to abuse is at key points.

I will say that as a whole, I think our defense is a little better than it has been for the past few years, and we had some good individual efforts. And the Patriots look like they are noticeably worse than a couple years ago. So in a rematch with everyone healthy, we probably do win more often than not. Maybe we can get away with some of that shit. We couldn't in this game.

[Mojouw]

Didn't say that it was the most effective or best performance. It did accomplish one of its key tasks. Getting beaten at the point of attack in the run game most likely wasn't.

What I don't understand is what people wanted in place of what happened today? Foam at the mouth and send 5-6 every down with blood in their eyes? That means single coverage on those scary TEs. The same TE that made those two back breaking big plays in single coverage against Golden during a blitz

I think it sucks they lost at home. I think it sucks they left the winning points on the table with a depleted roster. But I don't think the overall strategy was necessarily flawed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steeldude]

I will never understand why the refs let players hold Harrison on nearly every play.

[Steel Peon]

Le'Veon was our best, and Hamilton was admirable. Landry gave it a good try and didn't do half bad, but with the EONS of time he had to stand in the pocket surveying the field (kudos OL) he should've been able to find more decent targets than he did.

Every kick from Boswell hooked to the right, and there's no good reason why......probably his first bad game.

The goat goes to our defense, who can't stop the run, and can't stop the pass, providing large holes down the middle, that continue to be exploited as much this season as the last, with no clear scapegoat in sight.

[pczach]

Except for Tomlin's decision to not go for it on fourth and 2, I think the coaches did a very good job game planning and calling the game.

Tomlin obviously had them fired up and well prepared to play this game. They came out with fire and his game plan was very good. They just didn't have enough healthy bodies, and they had some calls and breaks go against them. I thought the effort was very good.

Butler's approach worked and kept the Steelers in the game. All the bashing of the defense is uncalled for with all the injuries. They didn't get pressure because they didn't really try. They rushed four most of the game and covered. They didn't allow many explosive plays except for the long pass to Gronk on what I think was a miscommunication on the back end.

Haley had a good game plan, and IMO called a good game for the most part. The only glaring mistake was the failed double reverse when they were moving the ball early. Other than that, he put Landry Jones and the offense in a position to make plays. With your top 4 WR out or severely hampered with injuries, I think they did ok.

My hope is that the team can heal up and make it into the playoffs with the roster intact and healthy. I want that rematch very badly. I think the Patriots do not.

[steel striker]

I don't get trying the 54 fg plus Boswell was shaky with all of his other kicks as well and, not many kickers have ever made very many 50+ at the burgh. To me it was a game of missed chances red zone pick missed 42 yard fg and, not getting anything off the punt fumble. I'm not saying they would have won but, it would have been fun to watch. Plus that missed PI call the cheats db hold a arm bar on Hamilton that would have been another red zone trip.

[teegre]

My thoughts...

DEFENSE:
The defense got worked over in the first quarter, but then shut the Taperiots down in the second quarter. On the opening drive of the second half, the Steelers defense was on fire!!!... but, then the next two drives allowed Gronk to score/set up two easy scores. You can NOT forget about Gronk on ANY play. They left him open twice, and that resulted in two touchdowns. It was as if the defense got cocky (after that opening three-&-out), and it blew up in their face.

OFFENSE:
Meanwhile, the offense had pleeenty of opportunities to score... not the least of which were the two turnovers, which gave them the ball at the Tapes' 45.

The INT was a must-throw. AB was in single coverage; I throw it to him every time. Alas, the throw was awful. Right decision, poor execution. Even a bad throw nets a FG there. Alas.. (-3 points)

The TD being called back really hurt. The missed FG was even worse. It went from 7 points, to 3 points, to 0 points. It took the offense a while to get back the momentum. QUESTION: Was it me, or did the defender slip? I'm really asking. (-7 points)

Those two plays alone were the difference in the game... and there were at least four other drives that should have netted a minimum of a FG (-12 points).

FG vs. GOING FOR IT:
That is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The formula is that you go for the FG first, and then try the on-side kick to go for the TD. BUT, it was a very long FG. Of course, if Tomlin had gone for it and failed, then people would be screaming that eh should have kicked the FG.

I have a problemw ith not giving the ball to Bell on 3rd-&-2. Last week, it was the same thing (3rd-&-1), and they put the ball in Landry Jones's hands... instead of Bell's. I would have given it to Bell on third and fourth down. He's bound to get 2 yards over those two plays (he was averaging nearly 5 ypc). THAT SAID, if Bell catches the ball on third down, we aren't even having this discussion.

SUMMATION:
If the defense doesn't mind-fart when covering Gronk, they Tapes only score 20 (I will concede that Gronk was going to get one TD, no matter what). That si plenty good enough. Add in Heyward, Shazier, and Dupree, and I like the chances that this team has in a rematch.

The offense was without AB, Coates, Rogers... D-Will... Gilbert... and obviously, BB. Those many, many opportunities that were given to Jones would have been FGs (or TDs). I feel confident in scoring 25-30 in a rematch.

[steelreserve]

I don't think they "forgot" about Gronkowski, so much as Golden just couldn't cover him. On both plays Golden lined up directly opposite from him and looked like he was supposed to be covering him man-to-man. And in both cases, he let him run right past and tried to cover him from behind. Well, that didn't work.

That was one of the few times I've ever seen Golden get caught out of position or blow his coverage, too.Usually he's about the most consistent one in the defensive backfield.

[86WARD]

Golden's "approach" to covering him failed miserably...

[Born2Steel]

Well, who exactly has shut Gronk down? Maybe it was their plan to use the TEs only when we blitzed? But I read the Pats only targeted their TEs 6 times all game. So either our guys did a good job taking them out of the plays, or Brady is slipping. Because 2 of those 6 targets went for TDs.

[86WARD]

It doesn't help that the Steelers pass D is probably the worst since the late 80s. This defense has been ranked as the second worst behind the 1988 defense.

[teegre]

I don't think they "forgot" about Gronkowski, so much as Golden just couldn't cover him. On both plays Golden lined up directly opposite from him and looked like he was supposed to be covering him man-to-man. And in both cases, he let him run right past and tried to cover him from behind. Well, that didn't work.

That was one of the few times I've ever seen Golden get caught out of position or blow his coverage, too.Usually he's about the most consistent one in the defensive backfield.

When I say "forgot", I mean left in single coverage. There isn't a player alive that can single-cover Gronk. Not one. (The bracketing worked great... aside from those two plays.)

- - - Updated - - -

Because 2 of those 6 targets went for TDs.

Yep. The bracketing worked like a charm... and on those two long receptions/TDs, Gronk was not bracketed. And, as I mentioned: you can't "forget" about Gronk for even one play (or, he'll burn you).

[steelreserve]

When I say "forgot", I mean left in single coverage. There isn't a player alive that can single-cover Gronk. Not one. (The bracketing worked great... aside from those two plays.)

Eh. I don't think that's true at all. Plenty of people could cover him one-on-one, but they would rarely be matched up against him. A decent CB or a good pass-covering safety would easily be able to, but those guys have other assignments that are higher priority. So Gronkowski eats the lunch of linebackers, nickel corners and safeties who aren't really coverage-first guys.

No, really, as a #1 or #2 receiver, I don't think he'd be anything special, just be a big target with good hands. But he's a matchup nightmare because putting your best defender on the tight end would be insane. So he draws the fourth- or fifth-best cover guy, which is about what Golden is.

I refuse to call him "Gronk" because fuck the Patriots and fuck calling one of their players with a familiar nickname.

[teegre]

Eh. I don't think that's true at all. Plenty of people could cover him one-on-one, but they would rarely be matched up against him. A decent CB or a good pass-covering safety would easily be able to, but those guys have other assignments that are higher priority. So Gronkowski eats the lunch of linebackers, nickel corners and safeties who aren't really coverage-first guys.

No, really, as a #1 or #2 receiver, I don't think he'd be anything special, just be a big target with good hands. But he's a matchup nightmare because putting your best defender on the tight end would be insane. So he draws the fourth- or fifth-best cover guy, which is about what Golden is.

I refuse to call him "Gronk" because fuck the Patriots and fuck calling one of their players with a familiar nickname.

I see your point, but I disagree. Few coaches are putting their second-best cover guy on Hogan. Gronk () definitely gets most teams #2 cover guy.

Now, could Richard Sherman stop Gronk??? You say "yes" and I say "no".


Regardless, Golden was NOT stopping him with single coverage.

[steelreserve]

I see your point, but I disagree. Few coaches are putting their second-best cover guy on Hogan. Gronk () definitely gets most teams #2 cover guy.

Now, could Richard Sherman stop Gronk??? You say "yes" and I say "no".

Sherman would just mug him all day and use his holding exemption. But on the other hand, the Patriots would use their insta-flag ability. Whose shitpower would win out? It's an intriguing matchup.

More to the point - if we'd had, say, Cockrell or Burns on him (not really clear who's our #1 CB and who's #2), would they shut him out completely? No. But a halfway decent CB would not just let the guy run free behind him.

Regardless, Golden was NOT stopping him with single coverage.

You got that right.

Our coverage on that play was just fuckin' stupid, by the way. They had no receivers at all on the right side of their formation, yet we had two DBs - Mitchell, who eventually picked up a receiver coming across deep over the middle, and Cockrell, who sat there 5 yards off the line of scrimmage just farting around.

I don't know whether he was supposed to be watching the RB or the second tight end (neither of whom ever crossed the line of scrimmage) but those were his two options. Your #1/#2 corner is covering the running back or the second tight end. Now THAT is the linebacker's job if there ever was one, or at most Golden's job. So we fucked that one up right and proper. Pretty inexcusable to do when your whole scheme is to bet it all on coverage instead of pressure.

[Mojouw]

Didn't the coverage breakdowns on Gronkowski come from running stunts and blitzes in front of it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[j-d-s]

We were down by 11 with 10 mins to go. 3 pts puts us one score down. Our D had been playing well. I don't object to the play call, just missing it. Boz let us down, twice. The hold negating the TD and then missing on the FG was a huge momentum swing. We are a better team than these Pats this year. We win that game 4 out of 5 times.

Nah. It was a 54-yarder at Heinz Field. The longest NFL make is 52 yards.

[Steel Peon]

Was it me, or did the defender slip? I'm really asking.

I didn't see holding on that play, and I don't think his arm was hooked either......I saw the defender slip.

[teegre]

I didn't see holding on that play, and I don't think his arm was hooked either......I saw the defender slip.

That's what I thought I saw, too... but, I am admittedly biased.

[teegre]

Sherman would just mug him all day and use his holding exemption. But on the other hand, the Patriots would use their insta-flag ability. Whose shitpower would win out? It's an intriguing matchup.

The proverbial Unstoppable Toilet versus the Immovable Turd.

[teegre]

Didn't the coverage breakdowns on Gronkowski come from running stunts and blitzes in front of it?

That could be. It would explain why Golden was left in single coverage.

The problem is, even on a stunt/blitz, you still have to bracket Gronk. You can't leave him in single coverage on ANY play. It only took two plays (one TD, the other set up a TD) to change the game (at that point, the Taperiots hadn't gotten into the red-zone since the first quarter).

[Mojouw]

That could be. It would explain why Golden was left in single coverage.

The problem is, even on a stunt/blitz, you still have to bracket Gronk. You can't leave him in single coverage on ANY play. It only took two plays (one TD, the other set up a TD) to change the game (at that point, the Taperiots hadn't gotten into the red-zone since the first quarter).

I agree. But the extra guy or guys has to come from somewhere. 2 Dbs on the outside receivers. 2 more bracketing Gronk. 1 in deep center field. There's your nickel package.

2 of 3 LBs to cover the short middle and the flat. 1 to join the rush with the front 3. That's everyone else and the OL is gonna outnumber pass rusher.

Want to send more than 4 (what I define as a blitz) then gotta pull someone out of coverage. With many teams you can get away with it but Pats make you pay if you don't get home in time.

That's where I remain unconvinced by the "blitz more" argument. This is not a team that man covers well enough to send extra guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Born2Steel]

When I say "forgot", I mean left in single coverage. There isn't a player alive that can single-cover Gronk. Not one. (The bracketing worked great... aside from those two plays.)

- - - Updated - - -



Yep. The bracketing worked like a charm... and on those two long receptions/TDs, Gronk was not bracketed. And, as I mentioned: you can't "forget" about Gronk for even one play (or, he'll burn you).

The Saints used Jimmy Graham(TE) lined up where ever he got the best matchup. He moved around the offense. Was there any 1 DB that could cover him? Maybe, but every team didn't have 1. So, like Gronk, double team is the only way to stop it. The Steelers did well with that, but when he was left one on one, Brady saw it and we got burned.

[steelreserve]

I agree. But the extra guy or guys has to come from somewhere. 2 Dbs on the outside receivers. 2 more bracketing Gronk. 1 in deep center field. There's your nickel package.

2 of 3 LBs to cover the short middle and the flat. 1 to join the rush with the front 3. That's everyone else and the OL is gonna outnumber pass rusher.

Want to send more than 4 (what I define as a blitz) then gotta pull someone out of coverage. With many teams you can get away with it but Pats make you pay if you don't get home in time.

That's where I remain unconvinced by the "blitz more" argument. This is not a team that man covers well enough to send extra guys.

What you've described is needing a minimum of seven people in coverage to cover a maximum of five eligible receivers. And on the plays where we got burned, it was more like three players who actually ran routes.

I do not think you actually need two DBs PLUS a guy in center field to deal with Gronkowski. Three DBs for one tight end? Come on. Two guys, yes, but one DB plus help over the top is fine. As long as the help doesn't get baited away like Mitchell did.

So ideally it's more like - 2 CBs on the outside receivers, third CB on Gronkowski, one safety deep, one watching the short stuff to the RB and other TE ... then you can rush anywhere from 1 to 3 linebackers depending on how ballsy you feel. If you can get a good sense of how likely the RB and second TE are to stay back blocking or not, that can help you a lot with deciding how many to send.

Now - as to what we actually did on the play in question ... why wasn't Mitchell helping over the top? Well, he probably would've been, if the CBs hadn't completely blown it. We had Cockrell hanging around the line doing nothing, and we also had Gay wandering around in the middle of the field not covering anyone. So right there, two of your three CBs out of the play for no apparent reason. It doesn't matter whether you're in a nickel if you do that.

Meanwhile, we rushed one LB, with one dropping into coverage against nobody, and one hesitator-then-rusher who was too late to make any difference in the play. So overall: Single coverage in the backfield, plus rushing four guys into seven blockers.

So basically what we managed to do was lose the numbers battle in both coverage AND pass rushing because we had four guys hanging around being ineffective. To my original point - we're not good enough to sit back and play coverage against the Patriots. Maybe it works on 90% of plays, but eventually shit like this happens because we ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH AT COVERAGE. And then they punish you for it. Just like every game.

[teegre]

I agree. But the extra guy or guys has to come from somewhere. 2 Dbs on the outside receivers. 2 more bracketing Gronk. 1 in deep center field. There's your nickel package.

2 of 3 LBs to cover the short middle and the flat. 1 to join the rush with the front 3. That's everyone else and the OL is gonna outnumber pass rusher.

Want to send more than 4 (what I define as a blitz) then gotta pull someone out of coverage. With many teams you can get away with it but Pats make you pay if you don't get home in time.

That's where I remain unconvinced by the "blitz more" argument. This is not a team that man covers well enough to send extra guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Butler would agree with you.

At one point, they showed a graphic, where the Steelers blitz (on average) on 19% of their defensive snaps, but in the Taperiots game, the Steelers blitzed 0%.

It was working... until a miscommunication left Golden in a lurch.

[Mojouw]

What you've described is needing a minimum of seven people in coverage to cover a maximum of five eligible receivers. And on the plays where we got burned, it was more like three players who actually ran routes.

I do not think you actually need two DBs PLUS a guy in center field to deal with Gronkowski. Three DBs for one tight end? Come on. Two guys, yes, but one DB plus help over the top is fine. As long as the help doesn't get baited away like Mitchell did.

So ideally it's more like - 2 CBs on the outside receivers, third CB on Gronkowski, one safety deep, one watching the short stuff to the RB and other TE ... then you can rush anywhere from 1 to 3 linebackers depending on how ballsy you feel. If you can get a good sense of how likely the RB and second TE are to stay back blocking or not, that can help you a lot with deciding how many to send.

Now - as to what we actually did on the play in question ... why wasn't Mitchell helping over the top? Well, he probably would've been, if the CBs hadn't completely blown it. We had Cockrell hanging around the line doing nothing, and we also had Gay wandering around in the middle of the field not covering anyone. So right there, two of your three CBs out of the play for no apparent reason. It doesn't matter whether you're in a nickel if you do that.

Meanwhile, we rushed one LB, with one dropping into coverage against nobody, and one hesitator-then-rusher who was too late to make any difference in the play. So overall: Single coverage in the backfield, plus rushing four guys into seven blockers.

So basically what we managed to do was lose the numbers battle in both coverage AND pass rushing because we had four guys hanging around being ineffective. To my original point - we're not good enough to sit back and play coverage against the Patriots. Maybe it works on 90% of plays, but eventually shit like this happens because we ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH AT COVERAGE. And then they punish you for it. Just like every game.

I think this is a good argument, but I think it is mixing elements of zone and man coverages together to indict the Steelers players on any given play. Often those DBs and linebackers that look they are doing nothing are doing the specific job of covering a zone on the field. Butler seems to like to mix concepts between man and zone and is usually how he gets his double teams accomplished - one defender tracks a guy and the "help/double teamer" changes as the tracking defender and receiver mover through the zones. But I don't really know, as I don't have enough background to really put that all together. I know last year the can opener for this defense was to flood an individual zone and overwhelm the defender and force him to choose which guy to cover. The Pats seemed to be running routes designed to make guys flow from zone to zone and then throw the ball while the rotations were late. But, again, i don't really know.

[ALLD]

It doesn't help that the Steelers pass D is probably the worst since the late 80s. This defense has been ranked as the second worst behind the 1988 defense.

Nobody is going to mistake them for the 1976 defense. 5 shutouts in last 9 games !!!

In 2007, ESPN.com named the 1976 Steelers the greatest defense in NFL history,[1] noting, "the 1976 unit was the best (slightly better than the '75 squad). Here's why: 28. That's how many points the Steel Curtain surrendered in the last nine games of the season. That's a total. As a result, Pittsburgh, which started the season 1–4, made it all the way to the AFC Championship Game....

The '76 Steelers didn't have it easy – their opponents had a .528 winning percentage. But they had these guys: Hall of Famers Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Jack Ham and Mel Blount. And eight Steelers defensive players made the 1976 Pro Bowl team: cornerback J.T. Thomas, defensive end L.C. Greenwood, Greene, Ham, Lambert, defensive back Glen Edwards, safety Mike Wagner, and Blount."


Week Date Opponent Time (ET) TV Result
1 Sunday September 12 at Oakland Raiders 4:00 pm NBC L 28-31
2 Sunday September 19 Cleveland Browns 1:00 pm NBC W 31–14
3 Sunday September 26 New England Patriots 1:00 pm NBC L 27-30
4 Monday October 4 at Minnesota Vikings 9:00 pm ABC L 6-17
5 Sunday October 10 at Cleveland Browns 1:00 pm NBC L 16–18
6 Sunday October 17 Cincinnati Bengals 1:00 pm NBC W 23–6
7 Sunday October 24 at New York Giants 1:00 pm NBC W 27–0
8 Sunday October 31 San Diego Chargers 1:00 pm NBC W 23–0
9 Sunday November 7 at Kansas City Chiefs 2:00 pm NBC W 45–0
10 Sunday November 14 Miami Dolphins 1:00 pm NBC W 14–3
11 Sunday November 21 Houston Oilers 1:00 pm NBC W 32–16
12 Sunday November 28 at Cincinnati Bengals 1:00 pm NBC W 7–3
13 Sunday December 5 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1:00 pm NBC W 42–0
14 Saturday December 11 at Houston Oilers 4:00 pm NBC W 21–0

[steelreserve]

I think this is a good argument, but I think it is mixing elements of zone and man coverages together to indict the Steelers players on any given play. Often those DBs and linebackers that look they are doing nothing are doing the specific job of covering a zone on the field. Butler seems to like to mix concepts between man and zone and is usually how he gets his double teams accomplished - one defender tracks a guy and the "help/double teamer" changes as the tracking defender and receiver mover through the zones. But I don't really know, as I don't have enough background to really put that all together. I know last year the can opener for this defense was to flood an individual zone and overwhelm the defender and force him to choose which guy to cover. The Pats seemed to be running routes designed to make guys flow from zone to zone and then throw the ball while the rotations were late. But, again, i don't really know.

Well, I agree I probably don't know all the specifics of exactly what they were trying to do on those couple plays, and it was probably more complicated than "just stand there."

But whatever our plan was, either a) We weren't good enough to execute it every time and paid the price, or b) They found a way to exploit it and we paid the price. Why it's almost impossible to sit back and defend against New England for the whole game. I don't think it's any coincidence that the back-breaking plays came when they did, at the end of the game. They had time to see what we were doing and then figure out how to punish it.

So no, all-out blitzing every down probably wouldn't have been the answer either, but doing what we did was just as dangerous because they knew what was coming, and you can't do that.

[Rotorhead]

Against any team there are going to be coverage breakdowns. We had 2 against one of the top offensive weapons in the league. I would call that a win any week. Nobody has been able to stop Gronk. Aside from all that, that isn't what really killed us, it was the running game again. Cam is our best run stopper and him being out really hurts our defense. He is also one of our better rushers, so that hurts also. I honestly believe if he were in the game we probably win. Our offense is not good enough (with all the injuries) to allow these types of breakdowns on our defense, but after the bye (assuming Ben is back) we shouldn't have the injury problem anymore on offense and most of our defense. That lines up a pretty good run into the playoffs (if we can stay healthy). Our coverage is getting better every game. Add Dupree with more pressure and if JJ can keep up the level of play he has shown the last couple of weeks we should be much improved on the def side of the ball soon.

[86WARD]

That wasn't a coverage breakdown on Gronks TD. Golden just didn't know how to approach it and screwed it up. They had the play covered, Golden just couldn't handle it and approached it wrong. I don't call that a breakdown. I call that poor execution...