PDA

View Full Version : Here is my biggest question about the loss to the Ravens...



Dee Dub
11-07-2011, 12:58 PM
Why didn't the Steelers on offense try to spread the Ravens out like they did versus the Patriots? That offensive scheme the Steelers used versus the Pats was totally playing into Ben's strength. Let him spread it out and chuck the ball all over the place. The Ravens were play a single deep cover one shell for most of the game with Ed Reed. They weren't going to give up anything deep. Spread those LB's out and create space underneath for your receivers.

This team has no identity on offense. One week they are one thing, then the next they are totally different. Why do they think that a traditional pro-style set is going succeed against this Ravens defense? Makes no sense. When are they going to get it...this team is built for what they were versus the Pats.

Leper Friend
11-07-2011, 01:19 PM
I had no problem with the gameplan. They were limited greatly with only 3 wideouts. They were trying to spread out it seemed. I saw Moore and Mendenhall out wide several times out of neccessity.They went 4 wide with Miller alot too. Other than that , what other options were there ? Johnson can't catch and I don't think they have alot of confidence in sanders yet.

pittpete
11-07-2011, 01:20 PM
Because BA needs to have D.Johnson on the field :roll:

Dee Dub
11-07-2011, 01:23 PM
I had no problem with the gameplan. They were limited greatly with only 3 wideouts. They were trying to spread out it seemed. I saw Moore and Mendenhall out wide several times out of neccessity.They went 4 wide with Miller alot too. Other than that , what other options were there ? Johnson can't catch and I don't think they have alot of confidence in sanders yet.

They started the game with 4 receivers (Hines got hurt), and you can use backs and TE to spread a defense out. My thing is always why play into an opponents strength and play away from yours? Makes no sense.

TallyStiller
11-07-2011, 05:54 PM
I think Baltimore's front 7 vs. our O Line was a much scarier matchup than New England's. If we try to spread them out and our O Line loses a couple one on one battles, it could get ugly quick for Ben. I just don't think we could've blocked it.

Starlifter
11-07-2011, 10:27 PM
i thought the game plan was fine. it's a #1 defense for crying out loud - and we still put up enough points to win the game. if ben hadn't thrown that horrible pick - I think we would have won easily. we had success running and throwing and the plays that busted were not really do to scheme but mores for execution. if DJ and Mwelde catch those balls - baltimore offense never gets back on the field.

AkronSteel
11-07-2011, 11:50 PM
We only had 3 healthy WR's after Hines and Battle were injured. I agree that the spread would have worked but they just didn't have the personnel with Sanders, Ward, and Battle unavailable!!!

Dee Dub
11-07-2011, 11:50 PM
i thought the game plan was fine. it's a #1 defense for crying out loud - and we still put up enough points to win the game. if ben hadn't thrown that horrible pick - I think we would have won easily. we had success running and throwing and the plays that busted were not really do to scheme but mores for execution. if DJ and Mwelde catch those balls - baltimore offense never gets back on the field.

Sorry Starlifter...a "fine" gameplan isnt what will beat the Ravens. Question...are you saying that was the best way to attack this Ravens defense? Question two...are you saying that type of offense the Steelers ran is the best for this Steelers team?

Shoe
11-08-2011, 01:37 AM
i thought the game plan was fine. it's a #1 defense for crying out loud - and we still put up enough points to win the game. if ben hadn't thrown that horrible pick - I think we would have won easily. we had success running and throwing and the plays that busted were not really do to scheme but mores for execution. if DJ and Mwelde catch those balls - baltimore offense never gets back on the field.

Sorry Starlifter...a "fine" gameplan isnt what will beat the Ravens. Question...are you saying that was the best way to attack this Ravens defense? Question two...are you saying that type of offense the Steelers ran is the best for this Steelers team?

I have to agree with Starlifter. And yes--I would say that was the best way to attack the Ravens defense... while still achieving a certain balance that won't make us overly dependant on one aspect of the game (should injuries dictate a change). In other words, it's not only about beating the Ravens one particular week. It's doing everything you can to beat them that week, while continuing to develop as a team for the longer haul. To simply go spread every week... well, what would happen if *god forbid* Roethlisberger goes down? Or Brown/Wallace? It completely changes the makeup of the personnel, and since we haven't tried to achieve any balance, we are screwed if we have to rely on a conservative offense.

As Starlifter said, we moved the ball very well last night. If Ben doesn't throw that BAD pick, we likely win. And I agree, the game plan was fine.

Shawn
11-08-2011, 10:09 AM
I think Baltimore's front 7 vs. our O Line was a much scarier matchup than New England's. If we try to spread them out and our O Line loses a couple one on one battles, it could get ugly quick for Ben. I just don't think we could've blocked it.

It's actually easier for an OL to read Blitzes if they choose to spread out the D. If a team is strong in their front 7, and strong with bringing heat...but average in their secondary...then spreading them out in theory should help...not hurt.

BradshawsHairdresser
11-08-2011, 10:14 AM
I'm with Dub on this one. Why not at least start the game on offense with what worked so spectacularly well against the Patriots?

And he's right, this team has no identity on offense, when offense ought to be a real strength. Instead of having the philosophy that the offense should score just barely enough, why not have the objective of scoring as many points as possible? If the Packers played with the same mindset as we do, they'd have 2 or 3 losses, too.

phillyesq
11-08-2011, 10:26 AM
I think Baltimore's front 7 vs. our O Line was a much scarier matchup than New England's. If we try to spread them out and our O Line loses a couple one on one battles, it could get ugly quick for Ben. I just don't think we could've blocked it.

I think this is the primary reason. The pats had no threat of a pass rush.

I also think Sanders being unavailable played a part, as did the later absence of Ward.

Shawn
11-08-2011, 12:14 PM
I think Baltimore's front 7 vs. our O Line was a much scarier matchup than New England's. If we try to spread them out and our O Line loses a couple one on one battles, it could get ugly quick for Ben. I just don't think we could've blocked it.

I think this is the primary reason. The pats had no threat of a pass rush.

I also think Sanders being unavailable played a part, as did the later absence of Ward.

This reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. If you fear the pass rush, you want to spread a team out and pass from shotgun.

ikestops85
11-08-2011, 12:34 PM
I think Baltimore's front 7 vs. our O Line was a much scarier matchup than New England's. If we try to spread them out and our O Line loses a couple one on one battles, it could get ugly quick for Ben. I just don't think we could've blocked it.

I think this is the primary reason. The pats had no threat of a pass rush.

I also think Sanders being unavailable played a part, as did the later absence of Ward.

This reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. If you fear the pass rush, you want to spread a team out and pass from shotgun.

I don't think that is true. You can get away with that sometimes but it's a good way to get your QB killed. I thought the game plan was pretty good ... and thank God that we re-signed Max Starks. With our receivers we can go to some more max protect and they will still get open. We mixed it up and ran decently and passed decently. Our problem seems to be in the red zone. We need to score TDs instead of kicking FGs. I don't think spreading out helps in the red zone.

Dee Dub
11-08-2011, 12:34 PM
Both New England and Baltimore run a 3-4 defense. And we all know that spreading a 3-4 out can neutralize the pass rush.

My thought is that not only does it favor going against a weakness for Baltimore, but I think Ben is at his best when he plays behind this type of offense.

feltdizz
11-08-2011, 12:38 PM
The Pats aren't the standard this year and beating them by spreading them out means nothing when you play a Ravens. They completely manhandled us up front the first time and also have one the best ball hawking safeties in football.

Dee Dub
11-08-2011, 03:20 PM
.....They completely manhandled us up front the first time and also have one the best ball hawking safeties in football.

Uh...that is another reason why you want to spread them out.

Dee Dub
11-08-2011, 03:23 PM
But let's just put it this way...the Steelers have ran that same type of offense twice this year versus the Ravens and they have lost both times and have struggled getting the ball into the end zone.

Me personally, I'd like to see Ben with a wide open, spread offense, with those young dangerous receivers out in space, while spreading the Raven's out wider than they normally are.

But that's just me.

Shawn
11-08-2011, 03:34 PM
Both New England and Baltimore run a 3-4 defense. And we all know that spreading a 3-4 out can neutralize the pass rush.

My thought is that not only does it favor going against a weakness for Baltimore, but I think Ben is at his best when he plays behind this type of offense.

Exactly.

It makes the blitzes easier to read, thus keeping your QB off his back. It has been the Steeler killer for years.

Dee Dub
11-08-2011, 03:43 PM
Both New England and Baltimore run a 3-4 defense. And we all know that spreading a 3-4 out can neutralize the pass rush.

My thought is that not only does it favor going against a weakness for Baltimore, but I think Ben is at his best when he plays behind this type of offense.

Exactly.

It makes the blitzes easier to read, thus keeping your QB off his back. It has been the Steeler killer for years.

Plus when they stunt upfront it makes it a lot easier to defend. How often have we seen Suggs stunt/loop around inside and create major havoc? If he has to come from a greater distance that could be nullified.

BradshawsHairdresser
11-08-2011, 03:46 PM
[quote="Dee Dub":h4ueg6fo]Both New England and Baltimore run a 3-4 defense. And we all know that spreading a 3-4 out can neutralize the pass rush.

My thought is that not only does it favor going against a weakness for Baltimore, but I think Ben is at his best when he plays behind this type of offense.

Exactly.

It makes the blitzes easier to read, thus keeping your QB off his back. It has been the Steeler killer for years.

Plus when they stunt upfront it makes it a lot easier to defend. How often have we seen Suggs stunt/loop around inside and create major havoc? If he has to come from a greater distance that could be nullified.[/quote:h4ueg6fo]

If, by some fortuitous chance, we happen to make the playoffs and face the Rats again, maybe BA and Co. will give the spread offense a chance. I'd like to see them try it.

Sonny
11-08-2011, 04:55 PM
Sucks that it takes a few ass kickings to finally "give in" and play to your strengths.

It really pisses me off, like there is some kind of rule or agreement between the Ravens and Steelers that they have to play a certain way against each other. This stuff about Suggs saying "They are the only team that can match us blow for blow".

Egos, people, egos. I have no idea why. I'm fine playing more "finesse" if it means beating the Ravens every single time we play, like Peyton Manning and Indy has. I don't think Peyton and the Colts' "finesse" style have ever lost to the Ravens. They own them more than we ever have, and they don't give in to this "blow for blow" crap. With our offense we should be putting points on the board FAST everytime we play these guys and force Flacco to throw every down, but no, we have to play the "Steeler way" against them. Why? To make these old school "purists" happy that love seeing low scoring bloodbaths? Win the game man. Jump up to a 21-0 lead through the air.

Slapstick
11-08-2011, 07:39 PM
They spread them out and went no-huddle...Ben threw a boneheaded INT to Suggs...

How do you snap the ball without knowing where Suggs is?

If you know where Suggs is, how do you throw that ball?!?

Dee Dub
11-08-2011, 08:27 PM
They spread them out and went no-huddle...Ben threw a boneheaded INT to Suggs...

How do you snap the ball without knowing where Suggs is?

If you know where Suggs is, how do you throw that ball?!?

Yes...but I am suggesting they do it throughout the game like they did versus New England. They did it a few times versus the Ravens but "it" like anything else needs a rhythm. And doing it sporadically versus a team like the Ravens is asking for trouble.

Captain Lemming
11-09-2011, 11:17 AM
Sucks that it takes a few bad word kickings to finally "give in" and play to your strengths.

It really pisses me off, like there is some kind of rule or agreement between the Ravens and Steelers that they have to play a certain way against each other. This stuff about Suggs saying "They are the only team that can match us blow for blow".

Egos, people, egos. I have no idea why. I'm fine playing more "finesse" if it means beating the Ravens every single time we play, like Peyton Manning and Indy has. I don't think Peyton and the Colts' "finesse" style have ever lost to the Ravens. They own them more than we ever have, and they don't give in to this "blow for blow" crap. With our offense we should be putting points on the board FAST everytime we play these guys and force Flacco to throw every down, but no, we have to play the "Steeler way" against them. Why? To make these old school "purists" happy that love seeing low scoring bloodbaths? Win the game man. Jump up to a 21-0 lead through the air.

Really?
Mendenhall had 13 rush attempts. Ben throws 37 times.
Mendenhall 12 runs in the last Baltimore loss. Ben throws 41 times.

Peyton? Let me tell you about Peyton.
Peyton has ONE RING
You wanna learn from Peyton? How he dominates Baltimore?

Peyton has one championship when he actually accomplished something by beating Baltimore.

During his SB playoff run he beat Baltimore on a day when he completed 15 passes for 170 yards.
Peytons Colts had 35 rushing attempts that day.

During Peytons ONE championship his team had at least 30 rushing attempts in every postseason game.

41 runs against KC
35 runs against Baltimore
30 runs against NE
42 runs in the SB versus Chicago.

Peyton had ONE playoff game with more than 270 passing yards (349 versus NE).

THAT is "old school" Steeler style.
That got Peyton his one ring.

41 and 37 pass attempts, around 16 RB carries in both Baltimore losses by us? That is classic no ring Peyton play calling.

Dont you dare blame our Baltimore losses on "old school" play calling.

Give me a run call on that 1st down Suggs int we win.
Give me a run call on the drop by Johnson, we win.

We had 16 RB carries both of the offensive plays that had the biggest impact on the loss were PASS PLAYS.

On a night when Ben sets the record for most consecutive Steeler 300 yard games dont blame Old School thinking on this one.

Slapstick
11-09-2011, 03:46 PM
Sucks that it takes a few bad word kickings to finally "give in" and play to your strengths.

It really pisses me off, like there is some kind of rule or agreement between the Ravens and Steelers that they have to play a certain way against each other. This stuff about Suggs saying "They are the only team that can match us blow for blow".

Egos, people, egos. I have no idea why. I'm fine playing more "finesse" if it means beating the Ravens every single time we play, like Peyton Manning and Indy has. I don't think Peyton and the Colts' "finesse" style have ever lost to the Ravens. They own them more than we ever have, and they don't give in to this "blow for blow" crap. With our offense we should be putting points on the board FAST everytime we play these guys and force Flacco to throw every down, but no, we have to play the "Steeler way" against them. Why? To make these old school "purists" happy that love seeing low scoring bloodbaths? Win the game man. Jump up to a 21-0 lead through the air.

Really?
Mendenhall had 13 rush attempts. Ben throws 37 times.
Mendenhall 12 runs in the last Baltimore loss. Ben throws 41 times.

Peyton? Let me tell you about Peyton.
Peyton has ONE RING
You wanna learn from Peyton? How he dominates Baltimore?

Peyton has one championship when he actually accomplished something by beating Baltimore.

During his SB playoff run he beat Baltimore on a day when he completed 15 passes for 170 yards.
Peytons Colts had 35 rushing attempts that day.

During Peytons ONE championship his team had at least 30 rushing attempts in every postseason game.

41 runs against KC
35 runs against Baltimore
30 runs against NE
42 runs in the SB versus Chicago.

Peyton had ONE playoff game with more than 270 passing yards (349 versus NE).

THAT is "old school" Steeler style.
That got Peyton his one ring.

41 and 37 pass attempts, around 16 RB carries in both Baltimore losses by us? That is classic no ring Peyton play calling.

Dont you dare blame our Baltimore losses on "old school" play calling.

Give me a run call on that 1st down Suggs int we win.
Give me a run call on the drop by Johnson, we win.

We had 16 RB carries both of the offensive plays that had the biggest impact on the loss were PASS PLAYS.

On a night when Ben sets the record for most consecutive Steeler 300 yard games dont blame Old School thinking on this one.

Damn!! :Agree

feltdizz
11-09-2011, 03:56 PM
I thought the pass protection was great against the Ravens last game. If Ben doesn't throw that INT or we don't get called for that horrible pass interference I wonder if we would bash the approach.

frankthetank1
11-09-2011, 09:09 PM
I thought the pass protection was great against the Ravens last game. If Ben doesn't throw that INT or we don't get called for that horrible pass interference I wonder if we would bash the approach.

or if the defense doesnt let baltimore go 92 yards in the last minute the game plan wouldnt be questioned. i agree the best way to play against a 3-4 defense who blitzes a lot is to spread out the defense and throw quick passes. i didnt think protection was much of an issue against the ravens either. i loved the game plan against the pats and i wish the offense would run the spread shotgun more, but i think a defense that cant force a turnover to save their lives is more of an issue than the offensive game plan.

feltdizz
11-09-2011, 10:50 PM
The Ravens aren't the Pats... I don't understand why people keep referencing the Pats game because we finally beat Brady and a bad D.

Ben had an impressive winning record vs the Rats as a starter prior to this year.

I think Lemming is onto something... usually Mend gets 20+ touches and we RUTFM and beat them deep a few times. Short passes don't work vs the Ravens because the DL and the LB's are too good.

We would have won the game if we didn't have the INT and if the freaking D could have stopped one of the 14 3rd down conversions.

Sonny
11-10-2011, 01:08 AM
The Ravens aren't the Pats... I don't understand why people keep referencing the Pats game because we finally beat Brady and a bad D. Well, like someone else said, Ravens or not, why did we go away from our strengths? It was a thing of beauty to watch Ben in the Pats game. And the Titans. And the Cardinals. We went back to last year against the Ravens, slow plays, etc. How do you know our quick passes won't work against the Ravens? That is why I brought up Peyton. An example of a QB that has had his way with their defense in a lot more than one playoff game.

What you said about their linebackers and DL, has that not been true about our group all these years that the quick throws torched our defense, time after time?

feltdizz
11-10-2011, 07:34 AM
The Pats game and the Titans game were a thing a beauty. If the Ravens were as bad on D as those teams I would agree with the philosophy.

The Pats tried to spread us out and look what happened to them this year. They aren having the success they used to have vs teams using the spread.

Not sure Peyton is a good reference on beating the Ravens. We've had more success with Ben vs them.

Dee Dub
11-10-2011, 01:00 PM
The Pats game and the Titans game were a thing a beauty. If the Ravens were as bad on D as those teams I would agree with the philosophy.

The Pats tried to spread us out and look what happened to them this year. They aren having the success they used to have vs teams using the spread.

Not sure Peyton is a good reference on beating the Ravens. We've had more success with Ben vs them.

Feltdizz, see if you can stay with for a second here. It has nothing to do with whether or not the Ravens D is bad or not. It is about the scheme they run...a 3-4 defense. And the fact that they blitz a lot. It is about the fact that the spread offense, in my opinion, is a strength of this Steelers offense, and by spreading out the Ravens on D, it goes against their strength. It allows the Steelers to counter what they try to do on defense. Are they going to have the same success versus the Ravens defense they did versus the Pat's defense? Absolutely not! But you have a better chance versus the Ravens defense if you try to neutralize what they do best.

And for your information, when the Pats tried to spread the Steelers out this year, how did the Steelers counter that? They played up close in a press man to man which allowed the Steelers DB's to disrupt the Pats routes to some degree. This to some degree can neutralize the spread.

I learned a long time ago that on defense for every action an offense does, there is a viable reaction for a defense. You are best always trying to exploit that weakness rather than play into that strength.

Sonny
11-10-2011, 02:01 PM
We've had more success with Ben vs them. Since 2000, Peyton is 7-0 against Baltimore, with blowout wins like 31-3, 44-20, 20-3 in one playoff game. No one has owned the Ravens as much as the Colts. Ben is 9-4 against them with wins like 20-19, 23-20, 13-9, 23-14, 23-20, 13-10, 31-24, and another 23-20. Now, we all know Ben is clutch and will usually win the close games, that is why this last sunday was the only time he has ever lost a close game to the Ravens. His losses were 0-27, 7-31, and 7-35.

I feel with our new and improved passing game, we should be coming out with the New England gameplan every week until teams start to stop us, put points on the board fast, and make QBs like Flacco come back from a 14-0 deficit. I know they are the Ravens and all and we have to play to their style, until we are down by 10, but I disagree with it.

Sonny
11-10-2011, 02:04 PM
Also, the Pats have no speed, none. You play that man-to-man stuff against them when they had Randy Moss? Good luck.

I think we have decent speed on our offense.

feltdizz
11-10-2011, 02:29 PM
We've had more success with Ben vs them. Since 2000, Peyton is 7-0 against Baltimore, with blowout wins like 31-3, 44-20, 20-3 in one playoff game. No one has owned the Ravens as much as the Colts. Ben is 9-4 against them with wins like 20-19, 23-20, 13-9, 23-14, 23-20, 13-10, 31-24, and another 23-20. Now, we all know Ben is clutch and will usually win the close games, that is why this last sunday was the only time he has ever lost a close game to the Ravens. His losses were 0-27, 7-31, and 7-35.

I feel with our new and improved passing game, we should be coming out with the New England gameplan every week until teams start to stop us, put points on the board fast, and make QBs like Flacco come back from a 14-0 deficit. I know they are the Ravens and all and we have to play to their style, until we are down by 10, but I disagree with it.

I didn't know Peyton was that good vs the Ravens... Ben is no slouch either since he had a 9-2 record before this year.

But in the words of Jimmy Hate..."Ben is no Peyton" :stirpot

Captain Lemming
11-11-2011, 02:26 AM
:tt1


We've had more success with Ben vs them. Since 2000, Peyton is 7-0 against Baltimore, with blowout wins like 31-3, 44-20, 20-3 in one playoff game. No one has owned the Ravens as much as the Colts. Ben is 9-4 against them with wins like 20-19, 23-20, 13-9, 23-14, 23-20, 13-10, 31-24, and another 23-20. Now, we all know Ben is clutch and will usually win the close games, that is why this last sunday was the only time he has ever lost a close game to the Ravens. His losses were 0-27, 7-31, and 7-35.

I feel with our new and improved passing game, we should be coming out with the New England gameplan every week until teams start to stop us, put points on the board fast, and make QBs like Flacco come back from a 14-0 deficit. I know they are the Ravens and all and we have to play to their style, until we are down by 10, but I disagree with it.

I didn't know Peyton was that good vs the Ravens... Ben is no slouch either since he had a 9-2 record before this year.

But in the words of Jimmy Hate..."Ben is no Peyton" :stirpot
Oh no he Di-int. :nono