-
[QUOTE=Shawn;566922]Lemming...you stated "And what team has more of a rep as an "attacking" defense than this one?"
About half the teams in the NFL? I was speaking about last season as stated in my post. No one feared the Steelers D last season.[/QUOTE]
Agree. At times it seemed that opponents knew exactly what to expect. After losing to the Raiders, Carson Palmer said exactly that.
People fear a defense when you are getting to their QB and taking the ball away not when the defense is first in yards allowed but you still beat them.
-
It isn't exactly like the defense "allowed" the Raiders to win, though they weren't great by any stretch in that game...
Turnovers by the Steelers offense and special teams miscues were as much or even more to blame for losses as the defense...
-
[QUOTE=Slapstick;566928]It isn't exactly like the defense "allowed" the Raiders to win, though they weren't great by any stretch in that game...
Turnovers by the Steelers offense and special teams miscues were as much or even more to blame for losses as the defense...[/QUOTE]
But it was an example of a defense that use to routinely make game changing plays but hasn't been able to on a consistent basis for a couple of years. IMO that is because the defense has gone passive scared to death to give up the big play versus attacking like they use to.
-
IMO, the #1 job of the defense is to keep opponents from scoring. Additionally, keeping the opponent on their side of the 50 and giving your O good field position is #2. Things like pressure on the QB or stopping the run or takeaways are fantastic side effects, but are not the primary mission. Just my $0.2.
-
[QUOTE=Sugar;566933]IMO, the #1 job of the defense is to keep opponents from scoring. Additionally, keeping the opponent on their side of the 50 and giving your O good field position is #2. Things like pressure on the QB or stopping the run or takeaways are fantastic side effects, but are not the primary mission. Just my $0.2.[/QUOTE]
Turnovers and QB sacks generally go a long way to stopping an opponent from scoring.
-
[QUOTE=phillyesq;566911]I agree, the talent is the issue.
One gap or two, Ziggy Hood is not going to suddenly become JJ Watt.
Worilds I think can be ok, but I've seen nothing to lead me to believe that he will be a force. I am excited about Jones. Woodley returning to form will be a major key.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you about Ziggy but Worilds really impressed me last year when he subbed for Woodley on the left side. I think he did a great job on that side as opposed to his play when on the right side.
-
Woodley himself said he was asked to drop into coverage...alot. So, we took one of the best pass rushers in the NFL and asked him to play DB.
-
[QUOTE=Shawn;566948]Woodley himself said he was asked to drop into coverage...alot. So, we took one of the best pass rushers in the NFL and asked him to play DB.[/QUOTE]
Woodley himself is making excuses for his lack of conditioning and lack of production....
-
[QUOTE=steelfin;566950]Woodley himself is making excuses for his lack of conditioning and lack of production....[/QUOTE]
I doubt he would outright lie about being dropped back into coverage. My point isn't to debate Woodley's conditioning but to make a point about a mindful attacking nature (or lack there of) of the D.
-
[QUOTE=Shawn;566948]Woodley himself said he was asked to drop into coverage...alot. So, we took one of the best pass rushers in the NFL and asked him to play DB.[/QUOTE]
And I can find the stats again, but he did not drop back into coverage any more than he did in years in which he was successful rushing the passer.