Defense, defense, defense...

[feltdizz]

Seattle may have called simplified coverages, but that does not equal a simple defense...

Pete Carroll has used the same defense for years...he learned the basics from Monte Kiffin...he learned more from George Seifert...he used it as head coach with the Jets, as HC with the Patriots, at USC and now at Seattle...

but all of those things are pretty simple... line up and beat your man is much easier than trickery on D.

As far as signals and routes... sure seemed like every other team had a chance to do the same thing to the Bronco's but they couldn't figure them out. The reason they beat Denver is because the beat them up. Every catch was met with a punishing hit or a gang tackle.

How does the #1 offensive line stink? This is exactly why #1 rankings mean little unless we see it against the best teams on the biggest stages.

[calmkiller]

We alternate every year. It is the Offense's turn this year. We will go O.

[JUST-PLAIN-NASTY]

You won't coach for long in the NFL if your design is "simple". Don't read into "Simplify" as a connect the dots defense. If you have the personnel...You can line up in Man-Cover 1 (Single Safety High) & stay in base against 21-12-11 personnel. That was "Simplify"...Because the Seahawks had the personnel to do it. They didn't run DL & LB of the field when the Broncos change their personnel groups. It is a line up..."Here we are...beat us" attitude. #1 Reason a team can do it is having the personnel.

You couldn't "Simplify" things like that with the Steelers secondary. The Steelers WOULD run DL & LB off the field to swap DBs as the offense change out personnel. There wasn't keeping anything simple in Dick's defense because he didn't have the personnel in the back end to do anything but Cover 2 against most teams. Matchup would dictate coverage if they were in man under. You could see in game the Steelers rotating off Wr to TE because it wasn't favorable. I'm telling you from a football guy...simple x's & o's. When I'm looking at film & the Steelers defense changing out DL & LBs because a team brings a TE in a game in favor of a FB...Or a team goes 3 WR & the Steelers go to dime...I got them beat even before I take the field. It is that simple from a OC standpoint if I got the offensive personnel. I'm going to MAKE YOU defend the run with 6 guys in the box & have to set the edges with Safeties. I'm going to force you to play off man if I have a TE that could run the seam. I'm going to quick screen you to death & MAKE YOUR ILBs cover crossing patterns, flat routes, & wheel routes. They won't have any gas in the tank to defend the run. The Blue Print was unrolled on the table early in the season. The Steelers could simplify things...Start by getting two new faces in the secondary at FS & CB. That alone will keep base on the field 25% more snaps. That's a very good start.

[phillyesq]

McClendon could definitely start for Seattle. If we get Nix I could see McClendon being a very good DE. Hood would also see time, he isn't as bad as people make him out to be IMO.

Seattle doesn't have 11 stars on D. It just looks that way because they play old school, punch you in the mouth D.

As far as JH, Ike, etc... that was a different NFL. One also has to wonder if JH should have been on the field a few years earlier. We don't have time to coach guys up and hope they show out in their 5th year. The same thing that made us great makes us look like azz right now. Smith was here too long... Ike isn't worth the money... JH was worth the money IMO but we got him on the back end of his career.

Steve McClendon could barely start for the Steelers. He might get rotational snaps, but they aren't sitting Red Bryant or Mebane to put him in the lineup. Hood might see time as a rotational player, but there is no way he'd be starting, either.

[steelsnis]

You won't coach for long in the NFL if your design is "simple". Don't read into "Simplify" as a connect the dots defense. If you have the personnel...You can line up in Man-Cover 1 (Single Safety High) & stay in base against 21-12-11 personnel. That was "Simplify"...Because the Seahawks had the personnel to do it. They didn't run DL & LB of the field when the Broncos change their personnel groups. It is a line up..."Here we are...beat us" attitude. #1 Reason a team can do it is having the personnel.

You couldn't "Simplify" things like that with the Steelers secondary. The Steelers WOULD run DL & LB off the field to swap DBs as the offense change out personnel. There wasn't keeping anything simple in Dick's defense because he didn't have the personnel in the back end to do anything but Cover 2 against most teams. Matchup would dictate coverage if they were in man under. You could see in game the Steelers rotating off Wr to TE because it wasn't favorable. I'm telling you from a football guy...simple x's & o's. When I'm looking at film & the Steelers defense changing out DL & LBs because a team brings a TE in a game in favor of a FB...Or a team goes 3 WR & the Steelers go to dime...I got them beat even before I take the field. It is that simple from a OC standpoint if I got the offensive personnel. I'm going to MAKE YOU defend the run with 6 guys in the box & have to set the edges with Safeties. I'm going to force you to play off man if I have a TE that could run the seam. I'm going to quick screen you to death & MAKE YOUR ILBs cover crossing patterns, flat routes, & wheel routes. They won't have any gas in the tank to defend the run. The Blue Print was unrolled on the table early in the season. The Steelers could simplify things...Start by getting two new faces in the secondary at FS & CB. That alone will keep base on the field 25% more snaps. That's a very good start.

Fantastic post! You can't "simplify" your defense if you don't have the studs to do it.

[feltdizz]

Steve McClendon could barely start for the Steelers. He might get rotational snaps, but they aren't sitting Red Bryant or Mebane to put him in the lineup. Hood might see time as a rotational player, but there is no way he'd be starting, either.

A lot of players "barely start" for us...

We have no idea if McClendon would start for them because he isn't with them. If both went there on day 1 and were told to get after the QB instead of occupying blockers who knows how their career goes in Seattle, Carolina, SF, etc...

[feltdizz]

Fantastic post! You can't "simplify" your defense if you don't have the studs to do it.

If you don't have studs you must complicate your D? Interesting.

[JUST-PLAIN-NASTY]

If you don't have studs you must complicate your D? Interesting.

I think it is about the interpretation of Simplify. It isn't from a textbook standpoint. Personnel changes & gameplan because of mismatches of personnel makes it more complex.

Look at it this way...Maybe it helps. If you had 2 Troys in their prime playing Safeties...2 Taylor's in their prime playing CBs...With Timmons...How "simplified" would the gameplans be with Offensive personnel substitutions? If I was a DC...The Steelers could stay in base all the way to 11 personnel which is 3 wide. Sub package wouldn't come on to the field unless the offense gave me 4 wide. That's "simplified". You could work all your blitz packages out of base & defend the run with 7 or 8 in the box as well as defend the pass. That may put those 11 on the field for 80-90 percent of the defensive snaps. That's cohesion created by simplification.

[Slapstick]

If you don't have studs you must complicate your D? Interesting.

Kind of...

If you don't have adequate talent at MLB, you might have to, I don't know, put your starting strong safety in a MLB type role...

If your top cover corner, whom you historically have follow the other team's #1 WR, can't effectively do that anymore, you might need to have each CB cover one side of the field...

If your OLBs are injured and not rushing the passer, you might need to have your 3-4 DEs get after the QB some more than they historically would...

[phillyesq]

A lot of players "barely start" for us...

We have no idea if McClendon would start for them because he isn't with them. If both went there on day 1 and were told to get after the QB instead of occupying blockers who knows how their career goes in Seattle, Carolina, SF, etc...

Who would you rather have? Mebane/Red Bryant? Or Steven McClendon and Ziggy Hood? I'd take the Seattle guys and it isn't close. How many guys on the 2014 Steelers do you really think would have been starters for Seattle? I think 3 would be a lot.

[feltdizz]

Who would you rather have? Mebane/Red Bryant? Or Steven McClendon and Ziggy Hood? I'd take the Seattle guys and it isn't close. How many guys on the 2014 Steelers do you really think would have been starters for Seattle? I think 3 would be a lot.

You are basing Hood and McClendon's evaluation in a D that tells them to occupy blockers...

If they were in a 4-3 they may look totally different.

Look at Asumough (sp) and Revis.. both looked AWFUL in zone after being considered top talents in man to man....

I still believe we are slow to evaluate our talent and use them to the best of their ability.

[phillyesq]

You are basing Hood and McClendon's evaluation in a D that tells them to occupy blockers...

If they were in a 4-3 they may look totally different.

Look at Asumough (sp) and Revis.. both looked AWFUL in zone after being considered top talents in man to man....

I still believe we are slow to evaluate our talent and use them to the best of their ability.

We've seen how Ziggy Hood looks when he plays a traditional 4-3 DT role in the nickel. He stinks. Cam Heyward plays in the same systems and generates a heck of a lot more pressure.

Nobody else in the NFL thought that McClendon would amount to much of anything. He had one visit as a FA, and GB obviously didn't see fit to match or exceed the deal the Steelers gave him, which pays him as a marginal starter.

[Shawn]

You are basing Hood and McClendon's evaluation in a D that tells them to occupy blockers...

If they were in a 4-3 they may look totally different.

Look at Asumough (sp) and Revis.. both looked AWFUL in zone after being considered top talents in man to man....

I still believe we are slow to evaluate our talent and use them to the best of their ability.

I agree with you 100%. How on this earth was Heyward sitting for two seasons? Really Lebeau? Hood was better than even a rookie Heyward? Doubt it.

[feltdizz]

We've seen how Ziggy Hood looks when he plays a traditional 4-3 DT role in the nickel. He stinks. Cam Heyward plays in the same systems and generates a heck of a lot more pressure.

Nobody else in the NFL thought that McClendon would amount to much of anything. He had one visit as a FA, and GB obviously didn't see fit to match or exceed the deal the Steelers gave him, which pays him as a marginal starter.

We hear that all the time...

[Oviedo]

We've seen how Ziggy Hood looks when he plays a traditional 4-3 DT role in the nickel. He stinks. Cam Heyward plays in the same systems and generates a heck of a lot more pressure.

Nobody else in the NFL thought that McClendon would amount to much of anything. He had one visit as a FA, and GB obviously didn't see fit to match or exceed the deal the Steelers gave him, which pays him as a marginal starter.

The nickel is not a 4 man Def Line. You are talking apples and oranges when citing play in the nickel as an indicator.