PDA

View Full Version : We shut down the #1 Passer and #1 RB in the league ...



SanAntonioSteelerFan
10-27-2009, 10:50 PM
... not to mention totally neutering one of (maybe the?) best rushers/sackers in the league (Jared Allen - was he on the field even?, heh, heh!). And weren't the Vikes one of the top D's in the league before our game?

All the bitching and complaining we (including me) have been doing, it kind of struck me just now that a pretty good case could be made for us having played a very good game on Sunday.

OK now, let's go out and improve on it in Denver!!

stlrz d
10-28-2009, 12:18 AM
... not to mention totally neutering one of (maybe the?) best rushers/sackers in the league (Jared Allen - was he on the field even?, heh, heh!). And weren't the Vikes one of the top D's in the league before our game?

All the bitching and complaining we (including me) have been doing, it kind of struck me just now that a pretty good case could be made for us having played a very good game on Sunday.

OK now, let's go out and improve on it in Denver!!

Yes...he was crashing hard on the end arounds. :D

SteelAbility
10-28-2009, 07:12 AM
Well, we did it to them on the scoreboard but not the stat sheet. I understand that the scoreboard is the one that counts, but I don't feel that was an impressive win. I feel it was a good win because it was a tough opponent, with a 6-0 opponent coming up, making 5-2 a much better position going in (psychologically) than 4-3.

The scoreboard represents present result. The stat sheet is more representative of expected future performance.

We still have problems on D, particularly in the 4th quarter. What isn't clear is whether this is due to fatigue or if this is due to a fundamental flaw. If it's the latter, teams will eventually figure it out and we will have big problems.

steelblood
10-28-2009, 07:23 AM
I agree that we stopped the run. However, they passed the ball pretty well. Allen may not have gotten a sack, but they pressured our QB pretty well. And, while we didn't allow peterson to run wild, he still had a nice day when you figure in his receptions.

Look, we won the game and that is great, but we did outperform the Vikes. They played well, we just got the big plays and overcame our turnover. They did not.

MeetJoeGreene
10-28-2009, 08:16 AM
Hey - the Vikings are for real. And our defense pulled out a win for us.

We beat a quality team on a day when our QB was a bit off and we left a lot of points on the field (mendy fumble, miller penalty)...

Who's complaining?

RockyMountainSteeler
10-28-2009, 10:08 AM
You have to remember that we also got 159 yards on 2 long returns. HAD the Vikes of scored instead of turning the ball over, then Ben would have lead our team down the field like he's done in the past and his stats would have looked much better.

The Vikings pretty much had to pass the entire second half because they were behind and therefore Farves #'s look much better. Our defense did not break though, they came up with the big play TWICE.

The offense has already shown this year they can put points on the board. I am happy that the defense showed the same thing. Stats are stats and in my opinion over-rated. The only thing I want to see is W's.

stlrz d
10-28-2009, 11:05 AM
Well, we did it to them on the scoreboard but not the stat sheet. I understand that the scoreboard is the one that counts, but I don't feel that was an impressive win. I feel it was a good win because it was a tough opponent, with a 6-0 opponent coming up, making 5-2 a much better position going in (psychologically) than 4-3.

The scoreboard represents present result. The stat sheet is more representative of expected future performance.

We still have problems on D, particularly in the 4th quarter. What isn't clear is whether this is due to fatigue or if this is due to a fundamental flaw. If it's the latter, teams will eventually figure it out and we will have big problems.

Stats can be twisted to say about anything you want them to.

Stats don't include that late in the game LeBeau was playing a soft zone. All stats show is that a QB put up a lot of yards and that a RB had a reception for 29 yards. Stats don't show all the room he had to run.

Stats don't tell the whole story. They never have and they never will.

Stats should come with the same disclaimer as investments. Past results are not indicative of future performance.

People think they are because it "makes sense" and we like order and things that make sense, but they really aren't indicative of anything.

NWNewell
10-28-2009, 11:29 AM
Well, we did it to them on the scoreboard but not the stat sheet. I understand that the scoreboard is the one that counts, but I don't feel that was an impressive win. I feel it was a good win because it was a tough opponent, with a 6-0 opponent coming up, making 5-2 a much better position going in (psychologically) than 4-3.

The scoreboard represents present result. The stat sheet is more representative of expected future performance.

We still have problems on D, particularly in the 4th quarter. What isn't clear is whether this is due to fatigue or if this is due to a fundamental flaw. If it's the latter, teams will eventually figure it out and we will have big problems.

I really struggle with all this "they passed pretty well" and our defense didn't play well in the 4th quarter stuff.

First off. They've got a great balanced offense. Even though AP didn't do much, the thread of him ripping off big runs is enough that the defense still has to respect him and that can open up the passing game. Even with that, we limited the passing game to short dinks and dunks. We didn't let them tear us a part.

The Vikes had almost 80 offensive plays largely because our defense had two turnovers run back for touchdowns. When that happens, our offense obviously does not come back onto the field, their offense does. So, our offense was robbed of two positions and their offense was given two more positions. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the 14 points and sacrifice the offensive positions. But that makes the the vikings offensive plays and time of position look outrageous.

We held a QB that is averaging a 106 QB Rating with 11 TD's & 2 INT's at 7.4 yds/att to a QB Rating of 76.8 with zero TD's and an INT at 6.5 yds/att.

We forced a well balanced offense into a one dimensional team that played the way we dictated held and offense that averages 5.5 yards per offensive play to 4.9 yards per offensive.

We did a far better job of shutting down the Viking's defense than the Ravens. Peterson averaged 6.3 yds per carry AND Farve averaged 9.6 yds/att with and 3TDs.

Was it it a perfect performance? Well, no. But people are being a little unreasonable. Our defense controlled the tempo of the game and neutered the Vikings offense. Regardless of "how" or "when" it was done, the defense held a team that averaged 32pts per game to 17 (only 10 from the offense, and only 3 offensive points in the entire second half). Holding any offense to 3 points in a half is a huge win for a defense... especially given the number of plays and opportunities the Viks had.

steelblood
10-28-2009, 11:41 AM
The Vikes had almost 80 offensive plays largely because our defense had two turnovers run back for touchdowns. When that happens, our offense obviously does not come back onto the field, their offense does. So, our offense was robbed of two positions and their offense was given two more positions. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the 14 points and sacrifice the offensive positions. But that makes the the vikings offensive plays and time of position look outrageous.


Farve averaged 9.6 yds/att.



Wrong. After one of our returns for a TD, they returned the kickoff for a TD which meant that they didn't get a single offensive snap and we got the ball. So, our D really only took a single possession away from our offense. That does not account for the disparity in plays and TOP. The Vikes dominated TOP and plays because (after the first quarter) they moved the ball well, while we were very inconsistent.

9.6 yards per attempt is excellent. That isn't shutting down anyone. That is a terrible piece of evidence for your argument.

Look, I think our D did some good things and, in the end, our team won because we made more big plays and got one heck of a gift on the deflected ball that Fox intercepted and returned. But, we did not "shut down" their offense as you suggest. That simply isn't true. Our D played very well in the red zone, but between the twenties we were beaten convincingly. Fortunately, games aren't won between the twenties.

NWNewell
10-28-2009, 11:48 AM
The Vikes had almost 80 offensive plays largely because our defense had two turnovers run back for touchdowns. When that happens, our offense obviously does not come back onto the field, their offense does. So, our offense was robbed of two positions and their offense was given two more positions. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the 14 points and sacrifice the offensive positions. But that makes the the vikings offensive plays and time of position look outrageous.


Farve averaged 9.6 yds/att.



Wrong. After one of our returns for a TD, they returned the kickoff for a TD which meant that they didn't get a single offensive snap and we got the ball. So, our D really only took a single possession away from our offense. That does not account for the disparity in plays and TOP. The Vikes dominated TOP and plays because (after the first quarter) they moved the ball well, while we were very inconsistent.

9.6 yards per attempt is excellent. That isn't shutting down anyone. That is a terrible piece of evidence for your argument.

Look, I think our D did some good things and, in the end, our team won because we made more big plays and got one heck of a gift on the deflected ball that Fox intercepted and returned. But, we did not "shut down" their offense as you suggest. That simply isn't true. Our D played very well in the red zone, but between the twenties we were beaten convincingly. Fortunately, games aren't won between the twenties.

:HeadBanger

9.6 yds / pass attempt was what Farve did against Baltimore, slick.

Against us he was 6.5 (he averages 7.4) and the Vicks offense was 4.9 per snap (they average 5.5).

You are right about the one TD run back though... but our offense didn't help the time of position or snap count.

I'm not saying the vikings didn't win the ToP legitimately, but as stlrs d said, the stats can be misleading if you do not put them in proper context and perspective.

Did we shut them down? No. But kept them in check, pigeonholed the Vikings into playing the way we wanted them too, and even statistically (not just score board) did far better than most defenses have.

PS I'll be happy with our defense giving up 400 yards and only 10 points every Sunday. (especially when our offense is off and only accumulates 49 snaps because they cant put any drives together).

Some people just can't see past the end of their nose...

stlrz d
10-28-2009, 12:18 PM
The Vikes had almost 80 offensive plays largely because our defense had two turnovers run back for touchdowns. When that happens, our offense obviously does not come back onto the field, their offense does. So, our offense was robbed of two positions and their offense was given two more positions. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the 14 points and sacrifice the offensive positions. But that makes the the vikings offensive plays and time of position look outrageous.


Farve averaged 9.6 yds/att.



Wrong. After one of our returns for a TD, they returned the kickoff for a TD which meant that they didn't get a single offensive snap and we got the ball. So, our D really only took a single possession away from our offense. That does not account for the disparity in plays and TOP. The Vikes dominated TOP and plays because (after the first quarter) they moved the ball well, while we were very inconsistent.

9.6 yards per attempt is excellent. That isn't shutting down anyone. That is a terrible piece of evidence for your argument.

Look, I think our D did some good things and, in the end, our team won because we made more big plays and got one heck of a gift on the deflected ball that Fox intercepted and returned. But, we did not "shut down" their offense as you suggest. That simply isn't true. Our D played very well in the red zone, but between the twenties we were beaten convincingly. Fortunately, games aren't won between the twenties.

:HeadBanger

9.6 yds / pass attempt was what Farve did against Baltimore, slick.

Against us he was 6.5 (he averages 7.4) and the Vicks offense was 4.9 per snap (they average 5.5).

You are right about the one TD run back though... but our offense didn't help the time of position or snap count.

I'm not saying the vikings didn't win the ToP legitimately, but as stlrs d said, the stats can be misleading if you do not put them in proper context and perspective.

Did we shut them down? No. But kept them in check, pigeonholed the Vikings into playing the way we wanted them too, and even statistically (not just score board) did far better than most defenses have.

PS I'll be happy with our defense giving up 400 yards and only 10 points every Sunday. (especially when our offense is off and only accumulates 49 snaps because they cant put any drives together).

Some people just can't see past the end of their nose...

Here is an example of a Ben basher trying to use Ward's stats (out of context) to prove that Ben is not a top 5 QB. Below is my response, with the context regarding Ward's stats.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/vb ... tcount=112 (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=225403&postcount=112)

Dude hasn't responded yet. I'm sure he's still pouring over stats trying to find yet another way to bash Ben.

Again, stats don't tell the whole story and people who rely on stats alone irk the hell out of me!

JTP53609
10-28-2009, 12:42 PM
we definetly bent but did not break....close to breaking, we were splitting but we came back..i am just a little concerned with our third and longs.....that is becoming a problem when they keep converting....

steelblood
10-28-2009, 12:49 PM
I missed the farve stat reference. My bad.

Look, I only made the point that we didn't "shut down" the Vikes which you seem to agree with. I don't think we are that far away.

The truth is that if the ball didn't bounce to Fox and we didn't get the tripping call (which was very close and could have easily been missed or not called), this board would be having a very different discussion about how our D played. Fortunately, our D played well in the red zone. I'm thankful for that.

SteelCrazy
10-28-2009, 01:08 PM
Three times the Vikings got into the red zone with Favre's dink and dunk attack and those three times I'm referring to, our D held. Two times the D scored and the third they held from the one three consecutive downs.

The game I saw, the D looked good from start to finish. Yea, the Vikes were able to move the ball 3-4 yards at a time, but the D held their ground and surrendered 10 points while scoring 14. A very good effort and I'm happy with their performance.

skyhawk
10-29-2009, 03:07 AM
I didn't like the D's inability to get off the field on 3rd down. Something this team had problems with in the early 2000's.

However, the Vikes did make some huge plays that no defense could've stopped and I give them credit for that. The Steelers played so well on 1st and 2nd down but many times were the victims of excellent play from the Vikes.

Mister Pittsburgh
10-29-2009, 04:05 AM
More no huddle from Steelers offense = less offensive plays for Vikings = crappier stats for Favre & Peterson = more thorough beating of Vikings.

Oviedo
10-29-2009, 07:45 AM
Well, we did it to them on the scoreboard but not the stat sheet. I understand that the scoreboard is the one that counts, but I don't feel that was an impressive win. I feel it was a good win because it was a tough opponent, with a 6-0 opponent coming up, making 5-2 a much better position going in (psychologically) than 4-3.

The scoreboard represents present result. The stat sheet is more representative of expected future performance.

We still have problems on D, particularly in the 4th quarter. What isn't clear is whether this is due to fatigue or if this is due to a fundamental flaw. If it's the latter, teams will eventually figure it out and we will have big problems.

Stats can be twisted to say about anything you want them to.

Stats don't include that late in the game LeBeau was playing a soft zone. All stats show is that a QB put up a lot of yards and that a RB had a reception for 29 yards. Stats don't show all the room he had to run.

Stats don't tell the whole story. They never have and they never will.

Stats should come with the same disclaimer as investments. Past results are not indicative of future performance.

People think they are because it "makes sense" and we like order and things that make sense, but they really aren't indicative of anything.

:Agree Stats lie!!!!!

The stats from one game have nothing to do with another game. There are too many uncontrolled variables (weather, injuries, mistakes, etc.) to try to turn this into a science.

Unfortunately fantasy sports have turned once knowledgeable fans into slaves of statistics because statistics feed the outcomes of their pretend games.

NWNewell
10-29-2009, 08:55 AM
Well, we did it to them on the scoreboard but not the stat sheet. I understand that the scoreboard is the one that counts, but I don't feel that was an impressive win. I feel it was a good win because it was a tough opponent, with a 6-0 opponent coming up, making 5-2 a much better position going in (psychologically) than 4-3.

The scoreboard represents present result. The stat sheet is more representative of expected future performance.

We still have problems on D, particularly in the 4th quarter. What isn't clear is whether this is due to fatigue or if this is due to a fundamental flaw. If it's the latter, teams will eventually figure it out and we will have big problems.

Stats can be twisted to say about anything you want them to.

Stats don't include that late in the game LeBeau was playing a soft zone. All stats show is that a QB put up a lot of yards and that a RB had a reception for 29 yards. Stats don't show all the room he had to run.

Stats don't tell the whole story. They never have and they never will.

Stats should come with the same disclaimer as investments. Past results are not indicative of future performance.

People think they are because it "makes sense" and we like order and things that make sense, but they really aren't indicative of anything.

:Agree Stats lie!!!!!

The stats from one game have nothing to do with another game. There are too many uncontrolled variables (weather, injuries, mistakes, etc.) to try to turn this into a science.

Unfortunately fantasy sports have turned once knowledgeable fans into slaves of statistics because statistics feed the outcomes of their pretend games.

Well... I kind of disagree. Stats don't lie. Stats are great. It's just that most fail to take into account variable change, as you eluded to, and often end up comparing apples to oranges.

But I fully agree that stats in the hands of untrained, can be very dangerous and misleading.

As an engineer, I run into this all the time. It can be very scary in the real world.

I'll even admit that when I'm looking through NFL stats, I don't research every variable (because I'm just looking for fun... not going to labor over it). But I try to look a little deeper than "386 yards, that's terrible".

ikestops85
10-29-2009, 11:34 AM
I don't think the people here are responding to the stats that the vikings put up. At least I'm not. I'm responding to that sinking feeling in my gut that when we have the opponent in 3rd and long they are converting at a very high percentage. I'm starting to flash back to the Tim Lewis days as the D-coordinator. :( and it bothers me.

The vikings had two 13 play drives and one 17 play drive. The fact that they didn't score on all those drives is great for the outcome of the game. The fact that they could impose their will on us for those drives does not provide confidence in the future games. That is controlling the tempo of the game.

I realize that they played the ultimate "bend but don't break" type of D. That LeBeau's philosophy of "if you don't give up the big play and force the opponent into a lot of plays to march down the field they will be bound to make a mistake" worked almost to perfection. It's just that I think last year's defense spoiled me. I loved the dominance that they displayed. I loved the fact that they often forced that mistake in the 3rd or 4th play of the drive and not the 14th or 18th.

No matter what it's great to see them win. Besides, I don't want them putting everything together until about game 14 or 15 this year.

:tt2

SanAntonioSteelerFan
10-29-2009, 10:38 PM
I don't think the people here are responding to the stats that the vikings put up. At least I'm not. I'm responding to that sinking feeling in my gut that when we have the opponent in 3rd and long they are converting at a very high percentage. I'm starting to flash back to the Tim Lewis days as the D-coordinator. :( and it bothers me.

The vikings had two 13 play drives and one 17 play drive. The fact that they didn't score on all those drives is great for the outcome of the game. The fact that they could impose their will on us for those drives does not provide confidence in the future games. That is controlling the tempo of the game.

I realize that they played the ultimate "bend but don't break" type of D. That LeBeau's philosophy of "if you don't give up the big play and force the opponent into a lot of plays to march down the field they will be bound to make a mistake" worked almost to perfection. It's just that I think last year's defense spoiled me. I loved the dominance that they displayed. I loved the fact that they often forced that mistake in the 3rd or 4th play of the drive and not the 14th or 18th.

No matter what it's great to see them win. Besides, I don't want them putting everything together until about game 14 or 15 this year.

:tt2

You know, I think about that a lot. That every year it's like that cartoon of the New Year's Eve baby - everything starts over, it's not like you pick up where you left off.

It would be sweet if we just progressed and got better and better every week, and peaked in the playoffs, and finally win the big one!

But I worry about things that might keep that from happening. Can we recover from a serious injury to anyone on the O line? Or, come to think of it, anyone in the secondary? Or anyone else on the defensive line?

I guess other teams are in the same boat, so even if we do lose someone, chances are we'll play a team that is also without one or two of their stars.

Can't predict the future, and there's no gain from worrying, so I'll just feel great being a fan of a team that CAN GO ALL THE WAY!!!!

SteelAbility
10-30-2009, 02:41 PM
I don't think the people here are responding to the stats that the vikings put up. At least I'm not. I'm responding to that sinking feeling in my gut that when we have the opponent in 3rd and long they are converting at a very high percentage. I'm starting to flash back to the Tim Lewis days as the D-coordinator. :( and it bothers me.

The vikings had two 13 play drives and one 17 play drive. The fact that they didn't score on all those drives is great for the outcome of the game. The fact that they could impose their will on us for those drives does not provide confidence in the future games. That is controlling the tempo of the game.

I realize that they played the ultimate "bend but don't break" type of D. That LeBeau's philosophy of "if you don't give up the big play and force the opponent into a lot of plays to march down the field they will be bound to make a mistake" worked almost to perfection. It's just that I think last year's defense spoiled me. I loved the dominance that they displayed. I loved the fact that they often forced that mistake in the 3rd or 4th play of the drive and not the 14th or 18th.

No matter what it's great to see them win. Besides, I don't want them putting everything together until about game 14 or 15 this year.

:tt2

This was a point I was trying to make. The scoreboard speaks of present result. The stat sheet is more of an indicator of expected future performance.

RuthlessBurgher
10-30-2009, 03:38 PM
I don't think the people here are responding to the stats that the vikings put up. At least I'm not. I'm responding to that sinking feeling in my gut that when we have the opponent in 3rd and long they are converting at a very high percentage. I'm starting to flash back to the Tim Lewis days as the D-coordinator. :( and it bothers me.

The vikings had two 13 play drives and one 17 play drive. The fact that they didn't score on all those drives is great for the outcome of the game. The fact that they could impose their will on us for those drives does not provide confidence in the future games. That is controlling the tempo of the game.

I realize that they played the ultimate "bend but don't break" type of D. That LeBeau's philosophy of "if you don't give up the big play and force the opponent into a lot of plays to march down the field they will be bound to make a mistake" worked almost to perfection. It's just that I think last year's defense spoiled me. I loved the dominance that they displayed. I loved the fact that they often forced that mistake in the 3rd or 4th play of the drive and not the 14th or 18th.

No matter what it's great to see them win. Besides, I don't want them putting everything together until about game 14 or 15 this year.

:tt2

This was a point I was trying to make. The scoreboard speaks of present result. The stat sheet is more of an indicator of expected future performance.

If the stat sheet is more of an indicator of expected future performance, then I am much more comfortable with Kirschke and Eason filling in after Aaron Smith went down this season than I was when he went down a few seasons ago and our run D fell apart completely (having a young DE in Ziggy Hood to rotate in as well this time helps as well). Facing Peterson will be the toughest test our DL will face this season, because he is the best in the world at toting the rock, but they held him to 69 yards on 18 carries (while our RB got 69 yards on only 10 carries).

:Clap :Bow to Kirschke, Eason, Hood, Keisel, Hampton, and Hoke!