I envy Seattle

[BigRob]

What happens to any defense when you take the two best players off it?

What would the Niners D look like without Patrick Willis and Justin Smith? What about Aldon Smith, Navarrow Bowman, Ahmad Brooks, Ray Mcdonald?

What would the Texans D look like without J.J. Watt and Johnathan Joseph? What about Brooks Reed, Connor Barwin, Cushman?

The Ravens already lost Terrell Suggs...what if they also lost Haloti Ngata? Have you seen the way Ellerbe, Mclellan have been playing?

These teams have lots of other playmakers to go with them and have shown it.

[Terrible Towlie]

I wish they would have installed more seats and not worried about the open end of the stadium when they built Heinz. When I go to Steeler games I could care less about a view. All I want to see is Steelers football and if they closed that end and added 15,000 more seats, not only would revenue go up, but so would the noise.

We have the best fans in football. Why not put more of them in the stands and make it absolutely totally intimidating to opposing teams. It seems the only thing they talk about Heinz field is the pretty view and the difficulty kicking the football.

[feltdizz]

Russell Wilson is the truth.. I watched him at NC State and Wisconsin... the kid finds ways to win. He's scrappy... has the legs to.get first downs and he just has something special. You don't pay sign Matt Flynn to a 20+ mill contract and then bench him unless you really believe in Russell.

Chadman hit the nail on the head... these teams out west are young and energized. We look stale and I'm sick and tired of hearing about Troy and JH. These guys are no longer dependable.... even with Troy and JH Tebow burned us... we didn't have Clark but that's part of football. We will always be without a player or 2 and if that means an embarrassing loss we need to change the scheme.

People love to talk about the other great defenses who would suffer without their 2 stars but I doubt they would give up 34 points to the Raiders.

[lloydroid]

Can see what Lloyd is getting at. The Stadium thing- not much can be done there. Don't mind HF to be honest- but this comes from the other side of the world- so Chadman's thoughts on HF might not count for much. Thing about the Seattle's & Arizona's at the moment is they look 'fresh'. They are fast, they are willing. They make mistakes... but then just get on with it.

The Steelers playing & coaching group are just looking a little stale. It's almost like they've been at it & have run out of genuine new ideas. Chadman thinks Haley's offense looks promising- if they can get the running game going. But Defense looks like they are doing the same old thing, with the same old guys, over & over.

It's probably time to consider change- be it the coaching, the personnel or the scheme... but something needs a freshen-up. Actually- it could be all 3 need freshening. In Chadman's opinion- the Offense is close to set. They don't need an injection of new young players- they are already there.

The Defense, however, needs a shot in the arm. There are some players there to build around- some that get 'bagged' on here a bit. Not sure our new 'star' players fit the LeBeau Zone Blitz 3-4 Defense as well as the previous occupants of the positions.

Ziggy Hood is more a 4-3 DT than a 3-4 DE. Timmons is more a 4-3 OLB than a 3-4 ILB. Woodley is more a 4-3 DE than a 3-4 OLB. Spence is more a 4-3 ILB than a 3-4 ILB. See where Chadman is going here? Worilds would likely benefit from being a strict pass rush DE too.

In fact, if we look at the specific 3-4 type players- Heyward & Ta'amu certainly fit the mold. Harrison to a degree.

What Chadman is getting at is- the future defenders on this team are not necessarily best suited to the current scheme. Might be worth thinking about.

You know, I have to admit, another poster said that our system always requires that dudes playing their college position have to learn a new position is some food for thought. It's like, why do we have a system where we constantly have to "reinvent the wheel" instead of a path that is not as complex? It has served as well, but so did horse buggies in their day, not so much now. Just because the 3-4 has worked, doesn't mean we need to hold onto it forever. The main plus I see is in stealing players that are tweeners, that end up being monsters, mostly taking smallish college ends and turning them into OLBs. That is the real benefit of it. We have got players in this manner such as Joey Porter, Woodley, Gildon, etc. The other place were we get steals is getting ends who are not high picks for 4-3, because they don't really fit at end or DT in regular 4-3, but do work for our system, with ends who are not blazing fast, but instead, soak up the OL men. And most of our NT are not real attractive to teams with 4-3; they are often shorter than they are looking for.

All that being said, I don't know how much longer all the having to make players switch positions et el is really worth it. It makes player evaluation much more difficult; they have to forecast how well a player will make a transition as opposed to just knowing how they have played at their current position in college. We make college DEs have to drop into coverage. How many failed LB picks have they had the last 10 years? Why can't they find more hits? I thought for sure that between Alonzo Jackson, Bruce Davis, Worilds, Sly, Chris Carter, Adibi, etc. they would have found good depth, but none of them are worth spit. When every announcer known to man says, "Once a LB puts on the black and gold, they instantly become great" they don't know what they are talking about. We've had so many of these guys not work out. I would love a 4-3 made up of 4 monsters who got pressure on their own, and enough with "tricky Dick" stuff that's not working. Of course, I say this after the D was #1 again last year, and we are without our two biggest starts on D right now. But, still. It feels stale.

[feltdizz]

I think the open end of the stadiums and the grass field is a huge advantage.

[lloydroid]

I wish they would have installed more seats and not worried about the open end of the stadium when they built Heinz. When I go to Steeler games I could care less about a view. All I want to see is Steelers football and if they closed that end and added 15,000 more seats, not only would revenue go up, but so would the noise.

We have the best fans in football. Why not put more of them in the stands and make it absolutely totally intimidating to opposing teams. It seems the only thing they talk about Heinz field is the pretty view and the difficulty kicking the football.

Totally agree. I have never once said to myself, "Oh, I enjoy gazing at the city skyline" when I was at HF. Never once. I much preferred the confines of 3 Rivers, where there was no view but the noise was much more intense. I have been to HF luxury club and 3 Rivers had nothing like that; it's worth every penny to go that route, especially if you only make it to one game a year like I do (I live 1,500 miles away). Hmmm, now that I say that, I guess it's easy to say because I have never had to pay for those tickets.

[lloydroid]

I think the open end of the stadiums and the grass field is a huge advantage.

Not at the expense of not being able to totally drown out the opponent being able to hear the snap count.

[lloydroid]

Century Link is nothing special. The seating is good and the place is loud as hell, but other than that it doesnt hold a candle to Heinz, IMO.

I have never been there, so I don't know for sure, but I do know it's the loudest outdoor stadium and it's new, so it can't be that bad. No one builds a new stadium and makes it crappy.

[DBR96A]

So you don't think Seattle has a rock solid, young core of DBs and a front 4 that puts pressure on without needing blitzes? OK. I'd trade for their backfield in a second. They are all fast, athletic and will bust you in the mouth.

I actually like HF, just fine, except for the open end design and crap field. At 3 Rivers, the crowd could make a huge difference. At HF, not so much. I used to _feel_ the crowd noise through my BODY at 3 Rivers. I don't get that at all at HF. Oh whoopity do; you can view the city skyline from inside HF. F that, Rooneys. I'd rather have a stadium built to help _WIN_, I don't need to view the city when I'm at a Steelers' game. That was a pretty huge mistake. Oh, wait, I can view the city during the game. Who gives an F?

Honestly, I don't have a problem with Heinz Field. I always thought it was strange that you never realized you were half a mile from downtown Pittsburgh when you were in Three Rivers Stadium. Besides, the view is free, nationwide advertising for a city that many people who have never been (or never left either, but that's another topic) still believe is a dying, post-industrial ****hole.

Furthermore, not only did multi-purpose stadiums suck out loud for baseball, but they were overrated for football too. All the seats in Three Rivers Stadium pointed toward the center of the field, so if either team got into the red zone, half the stadium had to twist in their seats to watch the action. Not comfortable. Heinz Field is much better designed.

And if you still don't like the open end, well they're about to close part of it anyway with 3,000 extra seats. As for the grass, I think it's awesome. It ****s the minds of every opponent who plays on it, which creates an extra home-field advantage.

I don't know why admiring another team's bright spots is some kind of Steeler sin.

It's not a Steeler sin; it's a yinzer sin. There's a difference.

[Terrible Towlie]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with Heinz Field. I always thought it was strange that you never realized you were half a mile from downtown Pittsburgh when you were in Three Rivers Stadium. Besides, the view is free, nationwide advertising for a city that many people who have never been (or never left either, but that's another topic) still believe is a dying, post-industrial ****hole.

Furthermore, not only did multi-purpose stadiums suck out loud for baseball, but they were overrated for football too. All the seats in Three Rivers Stadium pointed toward the center of the field, so if either team got into the red zone, half the stadium had to twist in their seats to watch the action. Not comfortable. Heinz Field is much better designed.

And if you still don't like the open end, well they're about to close part of it anyway with 3,000 extra seats. As for the grass, I think it's awesome. It ****s the minds of every opponent who plays on it, which creates an extra home-field advantage.




It's not a Steeler sin; it's a yinzer sin. There's a difference.

I liked hearing about the 3,000 seats. I'm still saying that I want more haha


The grass dosn't bother me that much, but I wouldn't mind seeing them change it for something that holds up better.