WTF, this still bothers me about DL's "system."

[Eich]

I do remember last year ... against the broncos. We played tight coverage and got burned by Tebow. If we would have played off and made Tebow try and pick his way down the field on a 10-12 play drive we would have won that game.

The only thing that is wrong with the defense is we are not pressuring the QB. Sitting back, although frustrating at times, is a great system when you get pressure on the QB because you force him into mistakes. Now, if we have to send the house to get pressure then we have to rely on our DBs to stay on the receivers and they aren't and never have been very good at that.

Actually - against the donkeys last year, we played the run. We sold out against the run. We dared Tebow to throw, putting corners on an island. And it burned us.

Our game against the Cheaters last year is the blueprint for how to play most teams in the league who can throw the ball. But it does require a few more good players than we've had available this year.

[RuthlessBurgher]

But did you get your 1st and 2nd warning both at the same time? I've never heard of such
a thing in my life. Also, it's amusing how I get personally attacked first, and nothing is said
to those usual suspects. Very interesting.

There is no rule saying that we have to give anyone 3 strikes. For instance, when spammers pop up, we ban them immediately without even a second chance. We have chosen to give you another chance here, though...be thankful for that rather than criticizing how this board is governed. If you don't feel that we are fair, well, no one is forcing you to stay.

Warnings can be sent in private via PM, so you have no idea who else has been warned. I usually send warnings via the PM route myself, but since Oviedo had just given a friendly reminder to all within an open thread (not specifically just to you...everyone involved in that particular discussion), I felt like I had to make this particular warning public, since you showed blatant disregard to what Ovi was saying by responding to his post with more name calling and a deliberate attempt to circumvent the board filter as well in the same post.

By the way, as you are complaining about being warned twice at one time, you should know that Fordfixer has also warned you via PM about language in another thread as well (just in case you haven't checked your private messages). I just found that out today, because the mods typically will discuss things of this nature amongst themselves before any harsh action is taken. We are merely acting in the best interest of the board as a whole...if you are able to conduct yourself in a civil manner, you are welcome to stay...if not, then you won't be here for long...that is entirely up to you, not the mods. Shoot straight, roll clean.

[hawaiiansteel]

Steelers trying to keep defense disguised

Seeing it coming?

Opposing quarterbacks’ statistics against the Steelers’ blitzes:

Quarterback, Team Performance

Michael Vick, Eagles 12 of 18, 134 yards, 2 TDs

Carson Palmer, Raiders 10 of 14, 90 yards, 1 TD

Mark Sanchez, Jets 8 of 17, 90 yards, 1 TD

Peyton Manning, Broncos 8 of 10, 146 yards, 2 TDs

By Alan Robinson
Published: Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Chaos theory is a complex form of mathematics in which seemingly random events become predictable when precise equations are applied, but even the slightest variation can cause unreliable results.

The Steelers’ defense is much the same way.

With its zone blitzes, multiple disguises and numerous schematic variations, the defense is designed to be as confusing to a quarterback as algorithms are to a college freshman. Remove the chaos and the mystery, and it becomes much more unreliable and unpredictable. And beatable.

According to several defensive starters, the Steelers repeatedly tipped their defense during losses in Denver and Oakland, thereby allowing Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer to decipher what was coming and to adjust to it.

The acquired knowledge helped Manning and Palmer lead a combined eight scoring drives in the second half against a Steelers defense that was much more effective against them in the first half. Denver scored 24 points past halftime in its 31-19 win on Sept. 19, and Oakland put up 20 points in the second half in upsetting the Steelers, 34-31, on Sept. 23.

Manning, operating a hurry-up offense, took advantage of the defense’s tendency to line up too quickly and adjusted his play call to what he was reading.

Palmer was more deliberate, waiting out the Steelers at the line of scrimmage and looking for any hints about their blitzing or coverages before running one of several predetermined plays.

“Carson held it, we tipped our hand a little bit, and he got us,” linebacker Larry Foote said Tuesday.

On Darren McFadden’s 64-yard touchdown run in Oakland, Palmer went to a hard count at the line of scrimmage and Brett Keisel, Chris Carter, Lawrence Timmons and Ryan Clark all moved, signaling what the defense was doing. Palmer reset, then checked off to the run.

During the short week of preparation for the Thursday night game at Tennessee, defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau emphasized the importance of keeping the defense disguised until the quarterback has no option but to call the play.

“We’ve got to be veteran enough to look at that (play) clock and say, ‘Hey, he’s not going to go right now, he’s going to gather as much information as he can (first),’ ” LeBeau said. “The bottom line is we have to be smart enough to know how much time that guy’s got, and when he’s going to go.”

A quarterback can benefit most from knowing what coverage a defense will employ.

“You’ve got to disguise,” Foote said. “The DBs (defensive backs), that’s their job to disguise and not show our hand.”

Nose tackle Casey Hampton said, “Guys just got to hold their coverages. You’ve kind of got to get a feel from watching film and knowing when they’re going to snap the ball.”

On at least five occasions Sunday against the Eagles, Steelers linebackers prematurely showed blitzes; Foote did it four times and Timmons once. Eagles quarterback Michael Vick was sacked three times and fumbled three times, but he was 12 of 18 for 134 yards and two touchdowns when the Steelers blitzed. He was 6 of 12 for 41 yards when they didn’t.

Titans quarterback Matt Hasselbeck, filling in for the injured Jake Locker, has faced the Steelers four times previously, including the 2005 season Super Bowl.

“He’s a quick rhythm passer,” Foote said. “A veteran guy like that, you can’t leave anybody open, he’s going to find them.”

What the Steelers intend to do is make sure he doesn’t find out a whole lot more.

http://triblive.com/sports/steelers/...#ixzz28s4gvyxp

[ikestops85]

Hmmm, that article seems to directly contradict what some on here have been saying. When we go to the blitz we get burned. When we play "scared" we are more successful. Very interesting.

[feltdizz]

I'm never surprised by our blitzes.. most of them are blatant and predictable.

[lloydroid]

Actually - against the donkeys last year, we played the run. We sold out against the run. We dared Tebow to throw, putting corners on an island. And it burned us.

Our game against the Cheaters last year is the blueprint for how to play most teams in the league who can throw the ball. But it does require a few more good players than we've had available this year.

Sigh. Eich, not saying this applies to you, but I am sick of those who think we merely "played tight coverage" vs. Denver last year; not only did they "play tight coverage" but they offered no safety help at all, all day long, to an extreme degree. Those two things are not one in the same. You can play tight coverage _____and_____ apply some safety help, with either "1" or "2" coverage. Had they used safety coverage _sometimes_ the outcome would likely have been an easy win. Even in OT, the safety raced to give run support while Thomas blew by Ike, who had zero help out there, and we lose in one play in OT.

[lloydroid]

There is no rule saying that we have to give anyone 3 strikes. For instance, when spammers pop up, we ban them immediately without even a second chance. We have chosen to give you another chance here, though...be thankful for that rather than criticizing how this board is governed. If you don't feel that we are fair, well, no one is forcing you to stay.

Warnings can be sent in private via PM, so you have no idea who else has been warned. I usually send warnings via the PM route myself, but since Oviedo had just given a friendly reminder to all within an open thread (not specifically just to you...everyone involved in that particular discussion), I felt like I had to make this particular warning public, since you showed blatant disregard to what Ovi was saying by responding to his post with more name calling and a deliberate attempt to circumvent the board filter as well in the same post.

By the way, as you are complaining about being warned twice at one time, you should know that Fordfixer has also warned you via PM about language in another thread as well (just in case you haven't checked your private messages). I just found that out today, because the mods typically will discuss things of this nature amongst themselves before any harsh action is taken. We are merely acting in the best interest of the board as a whole...if you are able to conduct yourself in a civil manner, you are welcome to stay...if not, then you won't be here for long...that is entirely up to you, not the mods. Shoot straight, roll clean.

Now that you bring that up, also very interesting. I was "warned" for saying "gad dang" or something along those lines. And maybe threw in a "f" and by "f" I don't mean there was more to it than that. Since then, I have noticed many people using far more obvious code swear words. I am sure they have all been warned for the more obvious replacement code curses, right? Everyone who uses replacement swear words are being addressed, right? And, you seem to want to ignore the fact that I was personally attacked first and foremost in every instance where a squabble occurred. You say some may have been addressed; so I can be confident that in each and every case where I am attacked first, those parties were addressed for their indiscretions. Is that what you are claiming? If so, super deluxe, fancy-tap-dance celebration: a fair, evenly-applied, consistent application is appreciated by all! I am sure that in all those instances where other parties started the personal attacks on a football post I made were ALL warned for their first-strike personal attacks made on me while I was merely making a football assertion. I believe everyone enjoys the evenly-applied moderation. As stated in one of the best movies ever made, Billie Jean said, "fair is fair."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClVGVsXyY-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eKu5...endscreen&NR=1