PDA

View Full Version : D is not dead...



steelz09
01-14-2012, 08:38 PM
Just watch this SF game. I don't like SF and I don't like the crybaby Harbaughs but let's face it...

SF is proving that our "old" style of football still works in today's NFL. The SF QB (Smith) is a game manager. However, they have a strong running game and the best defense in the NFL (yes, they are the best, not us).

That is "old" Steelers football. Stout D can keep you in the game every time. SF is proving that tonight.

D is not dead by a long shot.... let's reload with some talent at some key weakness on our D.

Steelgal
01-14-2012, 08:43 PM
I agree. But they've also been greatly aided by drafting in the top 10 for several years in a row, I would guess. It's harder to get truly stud players when you're drafting in the mid-20's or higher.

flippy
01-14-2012, 08:54 PM
I don't know if I'd call Alex Smith a game manager after that run.

He might be the most underrated QB in football right now. That was a clutch drive.

Steelgal
01-14-2012, 09:12 PM
i haven't watched hardly any 49ers games this season, but I agree Alex smith is under-rated. This last two drives have been clutch by him. Wow is all I can say.....

The sad thing is, if the Steelers were in the same position, can't say they would have tried to go for the win. I'm afraid they might have happy with the field goal and taking it to overtime.

flippy
01-14-2012, 09:13 PM
2 4th Q game winning drives. I'm not sure anyone can call Alex Smith a game manager any more.

chiken
01-14-2012, 10:44 PM
umm can we Define Stout D?

DrCalculus
01-14-2012, 11:23 PM
Thought I remember hearing Jaws say something during the Steelers-49ers MNF power outage delay that the 49ers have something like 12 players on their team drafted in the top 15 of their respective drafts. That has changed since Braylon Edwards was let go, but I come up with the following

Offense: Alex Smith, Vernon Davis, Michael Crabtree, Anthony Davis, Mike Iupati, Ted Ginn

Defense: Donte Whitner, Patrick Willis, Aldon Smith, Carlos Rogers, Justin Smith

Edwards would have been the 12th. Pretty amazing. All of that talent had to start to gel.


And I think Smith's development as a QB has as much to do with how horrible of a coach Mike Singletary was (especially with regards to the offense) as it does to how good of an offensive coach Jim Harbaugh is (and to some degree Mike Nolan had a hand in stagnating his development, too). It's no coincidence that the kid finally looks like a good QB now that he has an offensive minded coach calling the shots.

papillon
01-14-2012, 11:28 PM
The stout defense gave up 32 points. I wouldn't think that's very stout. Just sayin...

Pappy

steelz09
01-15-2012, 01:10 AM
lack of time possession was the problem for the 49ers. They gave up 2 scores in less than 4 minutes. Outside of that, they played well.

But I don't need to defend that comment. Our D was overrated. The niners D is better. Brees and Co would torch by close to 50. If I was NO offense coordinator, I would throw every down on us especially with Brees. He distributes the ball so well, he would absolutely expose our week spots.

focosteeler
01-15-2012, 01:18 AM
both teams showed today how important it is to have an OFFENSE that can bail out a defense at the end of the game.

I think what we truly need is balance, our D has done fairly well, our offense couldnt score, let alone move the ball at times. If we could score consistently I think our problems would be solved

Oviedo
01-15-2012, 11:23 AM
Just watch this SF game. I don't like SF and I don't like the crybaby Harbaughs but let's face it...

SF is proving that our "old" style of football still works in today's NFL. The SF QB (Smith) is a game manager. However, they have a strong running game and the best defense in the NFL (yes, they are the best, not us).

That is "old" Steelers football. Stout D can keep you in the game every time. SF is proving that tonight.

D is not dead by a long shot.... let's reload with some talent at some key weakness on our D.


Nothing will change on our "D" because of the person we have in charge. He totally believes in his way because there are good stats and rankings at the end of the season. We need to shake up our scheme and do things like let or D line attack the QB instead of controlling OLmen.

IMO we see no changes until LeBeau rides off into the sunset.

RuthlessBurgher
01-15-2012, 11:24 AM
I don't know if I'd call Alex Smith a game manager after that run.

He might be the most underrated QB in football right now. That was a clutch drive.

I don't think Smith should have scored on that run. That run gave Brees the ball with just over 2 minutes left and a chance to win (no one expected SF to get the ball back once again after that with a chance to answer...that was a shocker). If Smith pulled a Westbrook (instead of running untouched into the end zone, turtling at the 2 yard line on purpose), that would have taken the clock down to the 2 minute warning. The Saints would then have to use their final time out after a first down kneeldown. Then SF could erase the majority of the rest of the clock by taking two more knees before kicking a FG (from the distance of an extra point) to take the lead with less than 30 seconds to go. I'd rather be leading by 2 with less than 30 seconds to go against Brees than leading by 5 with just over 2 minutes to go against Brees. But that would have made what turned out to be an awesome ending to a game pretty anti-climactic one, of course...

feltdizz
01-15-2012, 01:58 PM
Didn't we keep New Orleans to 20 points in their house last year?

flippy
01-15-2012, 03:33 PM
Good point RB. I wasn't even thinking about that at that point. I was just excited he scored. Maybe NO let him score thinking along your lines?

Shoe
01-15-2012, 04:55 PM
They are a stout D, folks. Watch them. They may not be a historically great unit, but watch them make tackles, play the run tough, play sound, and they have stars on their D. That being said, let's not anoint them yet. Cowher made 4 or 5 AFCC games with this style of play. Every year, he fell short. (And it was said that his style doesn't work.) So let's not get the anointing oil out yet.

brothervad
01-15-2012, 06:27 PM
So it was a stout D that gave up over 400 yards passing?

Look I think we all have to really move the bar when it comes to what a stout D is.

The new NFL has made it stupid. The football I played/coached/used to watch on Sundays was if you could make a team one dimensional on Offense you had a great chance of having a dominant day on defense.

Not anymore.

Hell watching today's GB-Giant game you actually have to have a degree on molecular biology to know when a f'ing fumble.

brothervad

Steelgal
01-15-2012, 07:47 PM
I guess I'm old school, but these high-flying games with huge yardage is boring for me. Give me a smashmouth 10-7 game any day over this crap. Goodell has ruined it, along with the popularity of fantasy football. The fact that the two worst defenses in the league both have homefield advantage says it all. It's a shame and I don't enjoy the game nearly as much as I used to.

Chadman
01-15-2012, 07:54 PM
Chadman gets jhansle's point, and agrees...to a point.

The 49ers Defense is 'stout' in this modern version of the NFL. If you don't play well against them, they will own you. They play hard, they hit hard, they swarm.

Ok, they gave up points. That does happen.

Thing is, in today's NFL you can't JUST be 'stout'. You have to be able to make 'splash plays'- plays that result in turnovers, lack of yardage, loss of yardage...anything that actively works towards getting the ball back for the Offense.

If you let teams get forward yardage in this NFL, the way passing attacks work now, anything under 5 yards on a 3rd down is almost an automatic 1st down.

So teams CAN be stout for 2 or so plays in a series, but if you don't produce 'splash plays', you will still get scored on. Time in possession is the key- if you have the ball, you should score.

This is why 32nd ranked Defenses are not terrible- so long as they produce enough turnovers to give their Offense more time with the ball.

feltdizz
01-15-2012, 08:10 PM
I'm watching this GB vs NYG game and I'm curious to know how GB's ranking in scoring offense helps them win this game.

It sure looks like having a D that can stop teams from running up the score is a better solution than trying to win a shoot out.

SteelTorch
01-15-2012, 08:18 PM
How about we fix our O-line first so we can actually HAVE a running game and our franchise QB doesn't get sacked 40+ times a year?

feltdizz
01-15-2012, 08:24 PM
How about we fix our O-line first so we can actually HAVE a running game and our franchise QB doesn't get sacked 40+ times a year?

The running game is fine with Redman... Ben will always take a high number of sacks, it's part of his game.

Steelgal
01-15-2012, 08:28 PM
How about we fix our O-line first so we can actually HAVE a running game and our franchise QB doesn't get sacked 40+ times a year?

The running game is fine with Redman... Ben will always take a high number of sacks, it's part of his game.

And that's my issue with Ben and arians. If he wants to extend his playing career, he needs to stop taking those sacks. He needs an OC who doesn't encourage that type of play and will get in his face when he does. Ben needs someone that won't coddle him and be his BFF. He and Whiz may not have had the best relationship, but Whiz got way more out of him that arians ever has.

feltdizz
01-15-2012, 08:39 PM
How about we fix our O-line first so we can actually HAVE a running game and our franchise QB doesn't get sacked 40+ times a year?

The running game is fine with Redman... Ben will always take a high number of sacks, it's part of his game.

And that's my issue with Ben and arians. If he wants to extend his playing career, he needs to stop taking those sacks. He needs an OC who doesn't encourage that type of play and will get in his face when he does. Ben needs someone that won't coddle him and be his BFF. He and Whiz may not have had the best relationship, but Whiz got way more out of him that arians ever has.

I don't we got the most out of Ben with Whiz.... Cowher built teams that had everything but a franchise QB. IMO Whiz handcuffed Ben because he knew he was a gunslinger who wouldn't run the plays half the time.

SteelTorch
01-15-2012, 11:11 PM
I don't we got the most out of Ben with Whiz.... Cowher built teams that had everything but a franchise QB. IMO Whiz handcuffed Ben because he knew he was a gunslinger who wouldn't run the plays half the time.
Ben was also a rookie at the time. A GREAT rookie, but still a rookie. It makes sense they wouldn't hand the reigns to him right away. And whether you agree with the tactic or not, Ben did very well his first couple years and it got us a Superbowl.

Chadman
01-16-2012, 01:05 AM
If you turn Ben from the type of QB he is now into your standard pocket QB- do you take away the best parts of Ben Roethlisberger?

Do you make him less of a player?

Chadman thinks so. It's his ability to extend plays that makes him great. He's a good QB as far as accuracy, decision-making etc. But he excels at giving his players time to get in position & make plays. The only thing Chadman would change (and time & maturity are likely the only things that'll make this happen) is to get Ben to use his underneath recievers more often, instead of ALWAYS going for the big play.

Be careful what you wish for if you hope to change the way Ben plays. You may not like the result!

Chadman
01-16-2012, 01:07 AM
That said- if you get good blocking, particularly run blocking, and get the running game working with more effeciency, that will also make Ben a better player.

Dresden
01-16-2012, 01:13 AM
If you turn Ben from the type of QB he is now into your standard pocket QB- do you take away the best parts of Ben Roethlisberger?

Do you make him less of a player?

He's a good QB as far as accuracy, decision-making etc.

Really Chad,...with a straight face and in your honest opinion,..really ? Your saying this to people whom have actually watched this guy play football at the professional level for years now ? :lol:

It's all good though :Cheers :Steel

steelz09
01-16-2012, 08:54 AM
Look at that Giants D (and pass rush)!

But D is dead... tell GB that... Tell Colbert to draft all offensive skill positions because D is not longer important.

feltdizz
01-16-2012, 09:25 AM
Look at that Giants D (and pass rush)!

But D is dead... tell GB that... Tell Colbert to draft all offensive skill positions because D is not longer important.

I think the offense wins games philosophy was a little premature. I know some believe we had no shot against NE but I think that was to make them feel better about losing to Denver...

I think we had a good shot of beating NE because Ben could carved their D up and Redman would keep Brady on the sideline.

papillon
01-16-2012, 09:33 AM
Look at that Giants D (and pass rush)!

But D is dead... tell GB that... Tell Colbert to draft all offensive skill positions because D is not longer important.

I think the offense wins games philosophy was a little premature. I know some believe we had no shot against NE but I think that was to make them feel better about losing to Denver...

I think we had a good shot of beating NE because Ben could carved their D up and Redman would keep Brady on the sideline.

Yup, the Steelers fell asleep against the Broncos and it cost them, but I like the Steelers versus New England, even in New England. If the Ravens protect the ball and Flacco makes few mistakes the Ravens will win the game this weekend. The Patriots basically had a bye week into the AFCCG because the Steelers didn't give Tebow and the Broncos their due respect for being an NFL quality team.

Pappy

Jooser
01-16-2012, 09:36 AM
Chadman gets jhansle's point, and agrees...to a point.

The 49ers Defense is 'stout' in this modern version of the NFL. If you don't play well against them, they will own you. They play hard, they hit hard, they swarm.

Ok, they gave up points. That does happen.

Thing is, in today's NFL you can't JUST be 'stout'. You have to be able to make 'splash plays'- plays that result in turnovers, lack of yardage, loss of yardage...anything that actively works towards getting the ball back for the Offense.

If you let teams get forward yardage in this NFL, the way passing attacks work now, anything under 5 yards on a 3rd down is almost an automatic 1st down.

So teams CAN be stout for 2 or so plays in a series, but if you don't produce 'splash plays', you will still get scored on. Time in possession is the key- if you have the ball, you should score.

This is why 32nd ranked Defenses are not terrible- so long as they produce enough turnovers to give their Offense more time with the ball.

That's what I was thinking Chadman. I'd add that "stout" teams have something this year that the Steelers lacked most of the year because of injury and various other reasons: a continuous push to the QB. In other words, you don't have to necessarily get to the QB every play, but pressure him to make a quick decision. I'd venture to guess that for every 5 "snap" decisions a QB under pressure makes, one has a chance at being some sort of splash play for the opposing defense. Our DB's and LB's were often times caught in no-man's land while the opposing QB was standing tall like a tree growing roots just waiting to find an open guy. Denver was the biggest example of this. Tebow had 5-8 seconds per play to pick out someone 1-on-1 in coverage. More to the point, we played pressure and got after Tom Brady in October and beat the P*at's arses.

So D isn't dead, but D has transformed so that there is now a placed emphasis on getting after the QB in a hurry to stop this pass-happy league.

steelz09
01-16-2012, 08:09 PM
Chadman gets jhansle's point, and agrees...to a point.

The 49ers Defense is 'stout' in this modern version of the NFL. If you don't play well against them, they will own you. They play hard, they hit hard, they swarm.

Ok, they gave up points. That does happen.

Thing is, in today's NFL you can't JUST be 'stout'. You have to be able to make 'splash plays'- plays that result in turnovers, lack of yardage, loss of yardage...anything that actively works towards getting the ball back for the Offense.

If you let teams get forward yardage in this NFL, the way passing attacks work now, anything under 5 yards on a 3rd down is almost an automatic 1st down.

So teams CAN be stout for 2 or so plays in a series, but if you don't produce 'splash plays', you will still get scored on. Time in possession is the key- if you have the ball, you should score.

This is why 32nd ranked Defenses are not terrible- so long as they produce enough turnovers to give their Offense more time with the ball.

That's what I was thinking Chadman. I'd add that "stout" teams have something this year that the Steelers lacked most of the year because of injury and various other reasons: a continuous push to the QB. In other words, you don't have to necessarily get to the QB every play, but pressure him to make a quick decision. I'd venture to guess that for every 5 "snap" decisions a QB under pressure makes, one has a chance at being some sort of splash play for the opposing defense. Our DB's and LB's were often times caught in no-man's land while the opposing QB was standing tall like a tree growing roots just waiting to find an open guy. Denver was the biggest example of this. Tebow had 5-8 seconds per play to pick out someone 1-on-1 in coverage. More to the point, we played pressure and got after Tom Brady in October and beat the P*at's arses.

So D isn't dead, but D has transformed so that there is now a placed emphasis on getting after the QB in a hurry to stop this pass-happy league.

:Agree

The Steelers are in a tough spot defensively and I don't quite know what the answer is...
I personally think our defensive rankings didn't quite accurately represent our defensive struggles. I obviously watch all the games and watch them closely... and these were th 2 biggest defensive struggles I saw:

1) Against an average to above average running attack, the Steelers had to sell out to stop the run. A few teams that ring a bell... Denver, Ravens, Rams, Houston. I thought we did 'ok' against the run vs the Bengals and 49ers but I thought we had to sell out and that made us way to vulnerable against the play action.

2) We need to send WAY to many people to get to the QB. We don't do well w/ just 4 or even 5... forget 3. We bring the house and that obviously exposes our secondary.

BradshawsHairdresser
01-16-2012, 08:24 PM
Chadman gets jhansle's point, and agrees...to a point.

The 49ers Defense is 'stout' in this modern version of the NFL. If you don't play well against them, they will own you. They play hard, they hit hard, they swarm.

Ok, they gave up points. That does happen.

Thing is, in today's NFL you can't JUST be 'stout'. You have to be able to make 'splash plays'- plays that result in turnovers, lack of yardage, loss of yardage...anything that actively works towards getting the ball back for the Offense.

If you let teams get forward yardage in this NFL, the way passing attacks work now, anything under 5 yards on a 3rd down is almost an automatic 1st down.

So teams CAN be stout for 2 or so plays in a series, but if you don't produce 'splash plays', you will still get scored on. Time in possession is the key- if you have the ball, you should score.

This is why 32nd ranked Defenses are not terrible- so long as they produce enough turnovers to give their Offense more time with the ball.

That's what I was thinking Chadman. I'd add that "stout" teams have something this year that the Steelers lacked most of the year because of injury and various other reasons: a continuous push to the QB. In other words, you don't have to necessarily get to the QB every play, but pressure him to make a quick decision. I'd venture to guess that for every 5 "snap" decisions a QB under pressure makes, one has a chance at being some sort of splash play for the opposing defense. Our DB's and LB's were often times caught in no-man's land while the opposing QB was standing tall like a tree growing roots just waiting to find an open guy. Denver was the biggest example of this. Tebow had 5-8 seconds per play to pick out someone 1-on-1 in coverage. More to the point, we played pressure and got after Tom Brady in October and beat the P*at's arses.

So D isn't dead, but D has transformed so that there is now a placed emphasis on getting after the QB in a hurry to stop this pass-happy league.

:Agree

The Steelers are in a tough spot defensively and I don't quite know what the answer is...
I personally think our defensive rankings didn't quite accurately represent our defensive struggles. I obviously watch all the games and watch them closely... and these were th 2 biggest defensive struggles I saw:

1) Against an average to above average running attack, the Steelers had to sell out to stop the run. A few teams that ring a bell... Denver, Ravens, Rams, Houston. I thought we did 'ok' against the run vs the Bengals and 49ers but I thought we had to sell out and that made us way to vulnerable against the play action.

2) We need to send WAY to many people to get to the QB. We don't do well w/ just 4 or even 5... forget 3. We bring the house and that obviously exposes our secondary.

$$$
Good observations, and I hope the team really does something to address these issues.

If we could find a NT who was really a stud, who could not only plug the run, but consistently push the pocket and even occasionally bring some pressure on the QB, that would be huge, IMO.

I'd love to see Heyward in more, because I think he could bring some more pressure on the QB.

Of course, it didn't help that we almost never had a healthy Harrison and Woodley on the field at the same time. I still think Woodley is too inconsistent, and I'm not sure Harrison will ever be the player he once was. I'm not writing Worilds off yet, but I'm not convinced that he's ever going to be able to become a great pass rusher.