Steeler Defense

[Shoes]

I was reading this article and it said the Steelers defense has an NFL worst 442 yards per game allowed 28.3 points given up on average (third-worst) Are they this bad?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...teelers-on-mnf

[Fire Goodell]

They're good in the first half, nonexistent in the 2nd half it seems. 30 minute men

[Mojouw]

Facing too many snaps. I know that several disagree and talk about halftime adjustments and such things. That is certainly part of it. But they are just on the field too long and facing too many plays. You give an NFL offense that many shots at you, they are going to beat you up eventually.

look at these time of possession stats:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...-pct-net-of-ot
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...sion-net-of-ot

They are facing more offensive plays per game than anyone else in the NFL:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...plays-per-game

Offense is converting the LOWEST # of 3rd downs in the entire league:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...sions-per-game

Offense has the second lowest time of possession in the league:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...-pct-net-of-ot

Long story short -- the offense has too many three and outs. I think their average "drive" is less than 2 minutes. Defense is plain worn out and exposed by the middle of the 3rd quarter.

[steelreserve]

I have never liked the time of possession / # of snaps stat as an cause for problems on defense, more like a symptom. At best, a chicken-or-the-egg question.

Bottom line is, we get exactly the same number of possessions as the opponent. Our offense goes three-and-out, guess what, our defense can make the time of possession equal by making THEM go three-and-out. Except we don't. The defense is on the field for a long time because the defense gives up long drives. No one else is allowing the opponent yards and first downs.

The average amount of time spent IN MOTION (e.g., between the snap and the whistle) during a full NFL football game is historically about 15 minutes. That means that even in a horribly lopsided game, the defensive players are actually running around for about 10 minutes out of 3+ hours. The opposing offense is on the field for the same amount of time, running just as hard as you and shoving just as hard as you, and they should be just as tired.

Being "gassed" is not the problem, it is something that announcers say to look smart. Mentally worn out by getting your ass kicked all day, maybe ... or you look like shit because the offense has figured out how to dominate you, so they just keep dominating you.

What it looks like to me is that the defense is playing like shit, and the offense is also playing like shit. That's a big problem.

[Mojouw]

I have never liked the time of possession / # of snaps stat as an cause for problems on defense, more like a symptom. At best, a chicken-or-the-egg question.

Bottom line is, we get exactly the same number of possessions as the opponent. Our offense goes three-and-out, guess what, our defense can make the time of possession equal by making THEM go three-and-out. Except we don't. The defense is on the field for a long time because the defense gives up long drives. No one else is allowing the opponent yards and first downs.

The average amount of time spent IN MOTION (e.g., between the snap and the whistle) during a full NFL football game is historically about 15 minutes. That means that even in a horribly lopsided game, the defensive players are actually running around for about 10 minutes out of 3+ hours. The opposing offense is on the field for the same amount of time, running just as hard as you and shoving just as hard as you, and they should be just as tired.

Being "gassed" is not the problem, it is something that announcers say to look smart. Mentally worn out by getting your ass kicked all day, maybe ... or you look like shit because the offense has figured out how to dominate you, so they just keep dominating you.

What it looks like to me is that the defense is playing like shit, and the offense is also playing like shit. That's a big problem.

Maybe. However you can comb back through the multiple quotes from Cam Heyward, Mason Rudolph, and several Steelers coaches in the past 5 days that argue exposing you defense to a high amount of snaps leads to bad things. You can go back in history to when the Steelers defense was really good and see quotes from guys like Polamalu, Smith, Farrior, Hampton, and Harrison discussing how necessary it is to limit the amount of plays on defense in order to be able to play defense at a high level.

It isn't like this a good enough defense that you really expect them to go out there and hold it done and just shut the door on teams. That isn't going to consistently happen. It is really just about the odds. If an offense has a 50-60% chance of beating this defense on a given play; the more plays they face the quicker those odds catch up with them. Considering we are talking about losing 2/3 games by about 6 plays...it tracks that less plays on defense equals better outcomes.

[steelreserve]

Maybe. However you can comb back through the multiple quotes from Cam Heyward, Mason Rudolph, and several Steelers coaches in the past 5 days that argue exposing you defense to a high amount of snaps leads to bad things. You can go back in history to when the Steelers defense was really good and see quotes from guys like Polamalu, Smith, Farrior, Hampton, and Harrison discussing how necessary it is to limit the amount of plays on defense in order to be able to play defense at a high level.

It isn't like this a good enough defense that you really expect them to go out there and hold it done and just shut the door on teams. That isn't going to consistently happen. It is really just about the odds. If an offense has a 50-60% chance of beating this defense on a given play; the more plays they face the quicker those odds catch up with them. Considering we are talking about losing 2/3 games by about 6 plays...it tracks that less plays on defense equals better outcomes.

Yes, clearly the fewer plays on defense the better ... as you said, every play when the opponent has the ball puts the odds more in their favor. It just seems more likely that the reason for facing a lot of snaps on defense is BECAUSE the defense isn't paying well - not that facing a lot of snaps is what makes them perform poorly. Any time they want, they can get a three-and-out and end that argument.

Nobody disagrees that facing a lot of snaps is a bad thing, but like I said, chicken or the egg.

A huge part of why the 2008 defense was so good was that they let us absolutely DOMINATE field position. We force a quick punt, get the ball on the 40-yard line on half of possessions, easy game. Offense throws an interception at its own 40 - the opponent might not even score at all. They weren't sitting around wringing their hands and waiting for the offense to help them out. We won the time of possession and play counts BECAUSE of what the defense did, not because we were great at keeping them off the field by dragging out drives on offense. We won plenty of games like 16-13. Another good example of this would be the 49ers around 2010-12, when their defense was stacked and the offense sucked shit because Alex Smith was so bad he was getting booed off the field. A good defense is good on its own and a bad defense is bad on its own. Its problems are not becauss of the offense, it is because they cannot get a stop.

[Mojouw]

Yes, clearly the fewer plays on defense the better ... as you said, every play when the opponent has the ball puts the odds more in their favor. It just seems more likely that the reason for facing a lot of snaps on defense is BECAUSE the defense isn't paying well - not that facing a lot of snaps is what makes them perform poorly. Any time they want, they can get a three-and-out and end that argument.

Nobody disagrees that facing a lot of snaps is a bad thing, but like I said, chicken or the egg.

A huge part of why the 2008 defense was so good was that they let us absolutely DOMINATE field position. We force a quick punt, get the ball on the 40-yard line on half of possessions, easy game. Offense throws an interception at its own 40 - the opponent might not even score at all. They weren't sitting around wringing their hands and waiting for the offense to help them out. We won the time of possession and play counts BECAUSE of what the defense did, not because we were great at keeping them off the field by dragging out drives on offense. We won plenty of games like 16-13. Another good example of this would be the 49ers around 2010-12, when their defense was stacked and the offense sucked shit because Alex Smith was so bad he was getting booed off the field. A good defense is good on its own and a bad defense is bad on its own. Its problems are not becauss of the offense, it is because they cannot get a stop.

I see what you are saying. And I think it can and does apply to historically good defenses. But a merely average or below defense, such as the 2019 Steelers, absolutely must be helped out by the offense.

Historically good/great defenses are so talented that they don't need disguise or scheme to stop an offense. They can just line up and beat you by winning individual match-ups across the board. A merely mortal defense, needs to disguise intentions, cause confusion, and scheme to cover-up weakness. It can not get through simply winning a series of 1 on 1 match-ups across the board. If you expose that kind of defense to an increased number of plays because the offense can't make a single 3rd down conversion in an entire half of football, the other team is going to see through the disguise, get clarity on your intentions, and identify and expose your weaknesses on defense.

This is not a revolutionary concept. Watching the Bears and Patriots play defense yesterday and it was interesting to watch. They are not running anything fancy or even all that confusing. Heck, I could identify the pass-rushers pre-snap on my TV. But they are just winning the individual match-ups over and over again. So who cares if the offense stinks? In contrast, take the Chiefs and Lions defenses. Those two defenses played far better with both the lead and an offense that hung on to the ball. Because they can be had if they are asked to stop an offense multiple drives in a row and seeing the field a ton.

[Born2Steel]

BUT...an offense going 3&out or a turnover puts a defense in a bad spot already. That gets magnified when that defense is already not playing well. The poor play by the offense is not THE reason the defense is playing poorly at times but it is certainly not helping out either. Not an all or none situation. Once the offense starts producing points or at least getting first downs the defense gets a breather and/or doesn’t have to defend a short field.

[Blast Furnace]

Facing too many snaps. I know that several disagree and talk about halftime adjustments and such things. That is certainly part of it. But they are just on the field too long and facing too many plays. You give an NFL offense that many shots at you, they are going to beat you up eventually.

look at these time of possession stats:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...-pct-net-of-ot
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...sion-net-of-ot

They are facing more offensive plays per game than anyone else in the NFL:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...plays-per-game

Offense is converting the LOWEST # of 3rd downs in the entire league:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...sions-per-game

Offense has the second lowest time of possession in the league:
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...-pct-net-of-ot

Long story short -- the offense has too many three and outs. I think their average "drive" is less than 2 minutes. Defense is plain worn out and exposed by the middle of the 3rd quarter.

Perfect post - my sentiments exactly. I'll also add that the coaches aren't real big on making substitutions either. How many snaps did Ola have last week? What about Gilbert in for an exhausted Barron who just couldn't do it (I know many of you feel he sucked, but that is why he sucked so bad in the 4th qtr.).

[Edman]

The same old Excuses have been made for the Defense for years.

The Defense is bad, will only rise to the level of mediocre at best. Keith Butler is subpar DC running a dinosaur scheme.

[FrancoLambert]

I was reading this article and it said the Steelers defense has an NFL worst 442 yards per game allowed 28.3 points given up on average (third-worst) Are they this bad?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...teelers-on-mnf

This is one of those times when statistical analysis and the subjective “eye test” are a dead match.

[GoSlash27]

I agree with Mojo on this one. The defensive woes are substantially driven by our offense's inability to sustain drives. This is borne out by the difference between first half and 4th quarter performance. The Steelers D is highly effective in the first half, and peters out from there. This is direct evidence that they're worn out. They're not gassed because they allowed too many drives, they're getting gassed because they don't get a break. The long drives are a result of a tired defense, which in turn becomes a cause and exacerbates the situation. If the reason was really our defense sucking, they'd suck in the first half too.

[steelreserve]

I see what you are saying. And I think it can and does apply to historically good defenses. But a merely average or below defense, such as the 2019 Steelers, absolutely must be helped out by the offense.

Historically good/great defenses are so talented that they don't need disguise or scheme to stop an offense. They can just line up and beat you by winning individual match-ups across the board. A merely mortal defense, needs to disguise intentions, cause confusion, and scheme to cover-up weakness. It can not get through simply winning a series of 1 on 1 match-ups across the board. If you expose that kind of defense to an increased number of plays because the offense can't make a single 3rd down conversion in an entire half of football, the other team is going to see through the disguise, get clarity on your intentions, and identify and expose your weaknesses on defense.

This is not a revolutionary concept. Watching the Bears and Patriots play defense yesterday and it was interesting to watch. They are not running anything fancy or even all that confusing. Heck, I could identify the pass-rushers pre-snap on my TV. But they are just winning the individual match-ups over and over again. So who cares if the offense stinks? In contrast, take the Chiefs and Lions defenses. Those two defenses played far better with both the lead and an offense that hung on to the ball. Because they can be had if they are asked to stop an offense multiple drives in a row and seeing the field a ton.

I think we are talking about the exact same thing here, just different ways of saying it.

The problem with the 2019 Steelers' defense is that it is below average because of three or four significant personnel problems. It would be nice if the offense could help compensate for some of that, but so far it can't. So what we are left with is simply a below-average defense that is playing straight-up and eventually losing.

Basically, yeah, you can kind of cover up some problems by winning field position (a side effect of good defense or sustained drives, pick one) but that does not cause or fix the actual problems.

[Mojouw]

I think we are talking about the exact same thing here, just different ways of saying it.

The problem with the 2019 Steelers' defense is that it is below average because of three or four significant personnel problems. It would be nice if the offense could help compensate for some of that, but so far it can't. So what we are left with is simply a below-average defense that is playing straight-up and eventually losing.

Basically, yeah, you can kind of cover up some problems by winning field position (a side effect of good defense or sustained drives, pick one) but that does not cause or fix the actual problems.

Seems to be the case. I see what you are saying now.

I agree that it isn't like this is suddenly going to be a suffocating defense because the offense starts converting 3rd downs. Nothing can mask the problems in scheme and personnel that currently exist. BUT...you can hide them a lot better if you only have to face 50 plays a game instead of 70.

Not going to matter anyways -- it is kinda like arguing over why the clutch sticks while the engine is on fire.

[steelreserve]

Seems to be the case. I see what you are saying now.

I agree that it isn't like this is suddenly going to be a suffocating defense because the offense starts converting 3rd downs. Nothing can mask the problems in scheme and personnel that currently exist. BUT...you can hide them a lot better if you only have to face 50 plays a game instead of 70.

Not going to matter anyways -- it is kinda like arguing over why the clutch sticks while the engine is on fire.

One thing that absolutely makes sense - you see it in college basketball games a lot - is that you can narrow the gap in skill by "shortening the game," as in eating up the clock so that each team gets fewer possessions. Then luck plays a bigger role, or one player getting on a hot streak can win the game for you ... lot better chance of that if you have 35 or 40 possessions each side than 70 or 80, when overall skill has more and more chances to win out.

The problem with that is in football, you can't just slow down the game by holding onto the ball, you have to get first downs by being good yourself. So I guess it's a roundabout way of saying a lackluster offense takes away your chance at that as a compensating strategy. Or the same thing you said with your car on fire.

[Mojouw]

One thing that absolutely makes sense - you see it in college basketball games a lot - is that you can narrow the gap in skill by "shortening the game," as in eating up the clock so that each team gets fewer possessions. Then luck plays a bigger role, or one player getting on a hot streak can win the game for you ... lot better chance of that if you have 35 or 40 possessions each side than 70 or 80, when overall skill has more and more chances to win out.

The problem with that is in football, you can't just slow down the game by holding onto the ball, you have to get first downs by being good yourself. So I guess it's a roundabout way of saying a lackluster offense takes away your chance at that as a compensating strategy. Or the same thing you said with your car on fire.

Awesome analogy. That is precisely what I mean.

If we could take the 2019 Steelers defense from the last 2 first halfs of the this season and bolt it onto the 2018 Steelers offense. Now coming out at the second half, the Steelers are up about 2-3 scores and the other team has to expose their QB to a "fresher" Tuitt/Watt/MFF led defense that seems to now understand how to force turnovers and get sacks.

That combination would win a pretty darn good amount of football games.

[HollywoodSteel]

I really think it’s nuts that the defense isn’t better than it is. Our starting D line should be straight up dominant. We led the league in sacks last year and there’s no way anyone can say that we didn’t objectively upgrade our starting LBers.

Our biggest problem last year was a fluky lack of turnovers. Now we have two #1 picks at safety. That should be a god damn strength if there ever was one. Haden is really good corner. Nelson should at least be above average.

So what is it? Where is the glaring weakness? Is our DC just THAT bad? Because on paper we should easily have a top 5 defense.

I know this isn’t really a substantive post but I’m just at a loss for words with this team. Look at our talent across the board, yet we have the same amount of wins as the freaking Dolphins who are doing their best to tank.

[Mojouw]

I honestly think that if the offense could convert more than 25% of its 3rd downs (which is worse than the 2018 Arizona Cardinals) that the defense would rebound to at least last years level. Take last year's level of sacks and merge it with this year's takeaways? It could work. BUT the offense needs to be at that 25-28 points per game level and converting around 40% of its 3rd downs.

Even with the disasters against empty sets and the problems with RBs in the flat, and the issues with the TE -- I think all of that could be managed around if the offense was what almost everyone assumed it would be.

[HollywoodSteel]

I honestly think that if the offense could convert more than 25% of its 3rd downs (which is worse than the 2018 Arizona Cardinals) that the defense would rebound to at least last years level. Take last year's level of sacks and merge it with this year's takeaways? It could work. BUT the offense needs to be at that 25-28 points per game level and converting around 40% of its 3rd downs.

Even with the disasters against empty sets and the problems with RBs in the flat, and the issues with the TE -- I think all of that could be managed around if the offense was what almost everyone assumed it would be.

That certainly makes sense. I mean there’s absolutely no way not to put the blame for last week’s loss on the offense. How many takeaways does this defense need to generate?

And I like Conner as much as anyone else, but he is like the opposite of clutch.

At this point I am absolutely done with this team chemistry, do the right thing philosophy. Give me selfish head cases like Bell and AB any day. Those guys actually produced.

And while I’m selling my soul, give me an evil genius like Bill Belichick.

[steelreserve]

Awesome analogy. That is precisely what I mean.

If we could take the 2019 Steelers defense from the last 2 first halfs of the this season and bolt it onto the 2018 Steelers offense. Now coming out at the second half, the Steelers are up about 2-3 scores and the other team has to expose their QB to a "fresher" Tuitt/Watt/MFF led defense that seems to now understand how to force turnovers and get sacks.

That combination would win a pretty darn good amount of football games.

Well yeah - you win more games when you're better on offense and defense!

- - - Updated - - -

I really think it’s nuts that the defense isn’t better than it is. Our starting D line should be straight up dominant. We led the league in sacks last year and there’s no way anyone can say that we didn’t objectively upgrade our starting LBers.

Our biggest problem last year was a fluky lack of turnovers. Now we have two #1 picks at safety. That should be a god damn strength if there ever was one. Haden is really good corner. Nelson should at least be above average.

So what is it? Where is the glaring weakness? Is our DC just THAT bad? Because on paper we should easily have a top 5 defense.

I know this isn’t really a substantive post but I’m just at a loss for words with this team. Look at our talent across the board, yet we have the same amount of wins as the freaking Dolphins who are doing their best to tank.

Hey, relax a little bit. All you need to do to feel better is take a breath and sit back and watch your favorite scenes of the shit-eating dog from Star Wars.

OH WAIT I FORGOT - WHAT SHIT-EATING DOG?? Never mind, I don't feel sorry for you; you've got nobody but yourself to blame for that one.

[st33lersguy]

The Steelers would have given up at least 30 points had San Fran's offense not spent much of the game actively trying to hand the Steelers the game. They were dropping the ball and fumbling the ball all game

[Shoes]

D looked good tonight, let's hope it continues.

[JimHarbaugh'ssoakedtissue]

D looked good tonight, let's hope it continues.

8 sacks is impressive.

[HollywoodSteel]

D looked good tonight, let's hope it continues.

Yes, this is the defense I was expecting this year. We really do have talent across the board. It’s crazy that we needed 4 games to actually put it together... or maybe we just needed the Bengals.

I hope our pass rush really is this good, and it’s not that the Bengals O line is just that bad.

I’m curious to see how we try and handle LJ of the Ravens. We’ll get pressure for sure, but will we flush him out and get him down or just let him loose? This will be the game where we REALLY need Devin Bush and that speed to contain LJ once he decides to tuck it and bolt.

[Rotorhead]

I think it was more the Bungles than the Steelers pass rush. That being said, I think we can take the Rats as long as we can stop the deep shots. They don’t have a QB, the Browns exposed him last weekend. Our pass rush is certainly better than the first 3 games.

[Squeegee Thompson]

Also, too much is being made of defensive statistics after only 3 games.

3 points on 175 total yards against the Bungles will flip all of those previously-horrible defensive stats on their head.

[Fire Goodell]

They are forcing more turnovers this year which is good.

Barron, what's the deal with him? Last week he looked slower than Dirty Red. Yesterday he looked like a gamer. Could be a good pickup if he can play with more consistency.

Bush is starting to look like the real deal. Finally playing fast and doesn't look as lost as in the beginning of the season. Still a work in progress, but the important thing is we're seeing progress.

Diontae Johnson is impressive so far for a rookie. He could be the next AB. Yeah 2 of his TD's he was literally all alone with no defender within 10 yards, but he did have to get himself in that position in the first place. Seems like he's Mason's go-to guy, could be a legit #2 for Juju.

[DesertSteel]

Steelers are now #13 in yards allowed and #13 in points allowed - and #2 with 9 takeaways.

[JimHarbaugh'ssoakedtissue]

Steelers are now #13 in yards allowed and #13 in points allowed - and #2 with 9 takeaways.

What a difference a day makes. Serious this will be a top 5 D before the season ends and even with Butler trying to sabotage them.

[Squeegee Thompson]

They are forcing more turnovers this year which is good.

Barron, what's the deal with him? Last week he looked slower than Dirty Red. Yesterday he looked like a gamer. Could be a good pickup if he can play with more consistency.

Bush is starting to look like the real deal. Finally playing fast and doesn't look as lost as in the beginning of the season. Still a work in progress, but the important thing is we're seeing progress.

Diontae Johnson is impressive so far for a rookie. He could be the next AB. Yeah 2 of his TD's he was literally all alone with no defender within 10 yards, but he did have to get himself in that position in the first place. Seems like he's Mason's go-to guy, could be a legit #2 for Juju.

Tomlin, Butler, and their merry band of lackeys lit a fire under his ass. He was probably playing for his job last night. The question remains: Is this gonna be the new Barron, or was this a one-off performance for his angry coaches that'll go away once the adrenaline wears off?