eagleskins Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Big Ben is a one man offense. Steelers have the worst O Line in the league, zero running game, average wideouts, and a decent tight end. He is so clutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Art, there is only one type of QB pressure. There isn't several different types, as you seem to imply. Well, scratch that - there is pressure from the edges, from which a good QB can easily step forward and avoid, and a good OT can simply ride on out of the play, and there is collapsing the pocket, which causes the QB to hurry his throw, tuck the ball and run, or step into a sack, of which the Skins had very little last year. I honestly don't remember one collapsed pocket all season. If the QB has all day to throw the ball, its not good. Plus, our passing defense numbers were inflated by games against some of the worst passing offenses in the league last season. Seattle, Cincinnati and Cleveland were 29th, 30th and 31st in the league last year. Awful. St. Louis was 26th. Here's a zany prediction: the Raiders were 32nd in the league last year - I bet we do well against their passing attack last season too! Lack of turnovers is a huge problem. I think only once in history has a team that had a negative turnover differential reached the playoffs, but I could be incorrect on that. Pure idiocy is ignoring the glaring lack of turnovers. Sacks and QB pressures lead to turnovers - its simple fact. You're wrong. There is another type of pressure. It's called occupying the lanes and being very strict about it, not allowing the QB a clear throwing or running lane. It doesn't net you sacks or anything flashy, but it makes the QB really uncomfortable because he basically has nowhere to go with his body, and thus, it even affects where he can throw it to on the field. This style works especially great against the type of QBs who like to move around a lot in the pocket, like Romo sits to pee. It's why he's never had really good games against us (except that one where TO killed us with Sean Taylor being out and Doughty starting for the first time in 07). The guys rushing on the edge can't take too wide of an angle, nor can the guys up the middle just leave their gaps and try to make move that'll open up a space for the QB to see through or run to. This alone makes it tougher for all the guys on the Dline to actually get to the QB for a sack, but what it does is make the QB have to throw the ball in an uncomfortable position, hopefully leading to INTs. That part obviously didn't work out, though we had a ton of errant throws... just couldn't capitalize. It's most likely why we brought in Haynesworth. I think he'll bring a shift in how we play as Art alluded to, but the question is how big of one will it be? So this is what Art is basically talking about when he mentions Blache and what he wanted out of his pass rush. He did get that, and it actually works pretty well. The only time it doesn't is when you face the truly elite passers in the league who just have a knack for getting the ball out on time and in rhythm. That's where it's important to get aggressive and play more of a risk/reward game. It's why the Pats destroyed us in 07, but barely hung in there against aggressive teams like the Ravens who were in what anyone would consider a lost season at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnhnyy Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 lets not make the game sound like a 49-7 defeat for Titans. They lost 13-10 in OT at Pittsburgh to a SB champ. They also gor 4 sacks. I would say their defense is fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinklein Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Difference is they SACKED Roethlisberger 4 times, and had 2 Int's WITHOUT Haynesworth, that one game would have represented a significant amount of our seasonal total. But I do believe Albert will make an undeniable positive impact Exactly what I was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 that bend dont break zone that ten was playing at the end of the game was a joke. roflsburger ate it up and then some.big ben is crazy. the guy is joe mediocre for 3.9 quarters of football, then all the sudden with the game on the line, he ALWAYS comes through. its seriously insane. he led the drive where ward screwed them, then came back in OT and did it AGAIN. i mean its insane. hes gotta be the most clutch QB in sports. yes moreso than brady or manning. both guys are better than he is throughout a game, but if youre down and need points or a comeback, big ben is king. No one is more clutch than Tom Brady. I like Ben and think he's a great QB, but Tom Brady is on a different level with the game on the line. Roethlisberger needs 5-6 more game-ending playoff drives to approach Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Let's not forget that the Squealers O-line gave up the 4th most sacks last season. They didn't do a whole lot to address that in the offseason. They were talking about that during the game and Ben apologized to his oline because a lot of those sacks were his fault. Look how long he has the ball sometimes, it sick and he looks like Houdini getting out of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Last season, when the Titans and Steelers played, Roethlisberger was sacked 5 times, fumbled 4 times (lost 2), threw 2 INTs, and they lost the game 31 - 14. I'd Big Al made a difference. I didn't expect the Titans defense to crumble, but to say that Big Al leaving didn't make them any worse is kind of, well, unrealistic is the most cordial thing I can think of. In this years game Roethlisberger was sacked 4 times, no fumbles, and 2 INTs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans&SkinsFan Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Last season, when the Titans and Steelers played, Roethlisberger was sacked 5 times, fumbled 4 times (lost 2), threw 2 INTs, and they lost the game 31 - 14.I'd Big Al made a difference. I didn't expect the Titans defense to crumble, but to say that Big Al leaving didn't make them any worse is kind of, well, unrealistic is the most cordial thing I can think of. In this years game Roethlisberger was sacked 4 times, no fumbles, and 2 INTs. Big Al wasn't playing in that game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 that bend dont break zone that ten was playing at the end of the game was a joke. roflsburger ate it up and then some.big ben is crazy. the guy is joe mediocre for 3.9 quarters of football, then all the sudden with the game on the line, he ALWAYS comes through. its seriously insane. he led the drive where ward screwed them, then came back in OT and did it AGAIN. i mean its insane. hes gotta be the most clutch QB in sports. yes moreso than brady or manning. both guys are better than he is throughout a game, but if youre down and need points or a comeback, big ben is king. I don't agree with you often, but you're spot on here. Big Ben is a oneif a kind QB. He's right next to Manning, Brady, and Rivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 While I understand your point, the Titan still did record 4 sacks last night, which would put them on pace for 64 on the season. Obviously an unreasonable total, but still, the Skins didn't get much pressure at all last year, while the Titans are still getting it even without Haynesworth. They just run a more agressive scheme. 2 of those sacks Big Ben held the ball entirely to long. If that were any other QB analyst would be kicking and screaming. But because its Ben they simply say he was "trying to make a play". I give credit to their defense but two of those sacks he didnt need to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky52Mc Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 It was the first game and the D line was gassed. Albert would have been as well. Haye and Cook looked really good alomost looked like they didn't miss Al one bit. I disagree, that Titans line looked gone after a few quarters. It's not to say Haynesworth wouldn't have but they didn't look the same by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vooskin Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 lol at people saying 4 sacks and 2 ints as if the titans d was great. People the Steelers line sucks, they gave up the 3rd or 4th most sacks in the nfl last year at 51. WE HAD FIVE SACKS against them last year and a total of 24. One of those ints was not from pressure but just an over throw while the other was on hailmary at the end of the quarter. Steelers run game gets shutdown all the time. Their oline sucks, go check the steelers rushing stats last year. What the titans did last night is what any solid D would do. We made Ben look alot worse then the titans did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoGravity Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 that bend dont break zone that ten was playing at the end of the game was a joke. roflsburger ate it up and then some.big ben is crazy. the guy is joe mediocre for 3.9 quarters of football, then all the sudden with the game on the line, he ALWAYS comes through. its seriously insane. he led the drive where ward screwed them, then came back in OT and did it AGAIN. i mean its insane. hes gotta be the most clutch QB in sports. yes moreso than brady or manning. both guys are better than he is throughout a game, but if youre down and need points or a comeback, big ben is king. Thank you. Somebody finally not letting their biased hate for the Steelers get in the way. This is the most accurate description of Ben on this board. The man just wins and doesn't get ANY credit because we have a good defense. Guys like Manning and Peyton had great defenses too in the past (look at the Pats undefeated season, both the Colts and Pats were top 5 in D) but people just ignorantly forget because their names are Brady and Manning. Its sickening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Big Al wasn't playing in that game :hysterical::hysterical: Well, then there goes my ideas. Thanks for the correction man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Thank you. Somebody finally not letting their biased hate for the Steelers get in the way. No offense, but if you're looking for "biased hate" directed towards the Steelers, you should go to a Ravens or Browns message board. Now if we were talking about the Cowboys, Eagles fans, or the Giants, then you've come to the right place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNGwithOUTaCrwN Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to see a LOT of QBs on their backs this season, and its going to be fantastic. thats what i think im most excited for. we improved an already high ranked defense and i just cant wait to see them destroying other teams attempting to move the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share Posted September 13, 2009 lets not make the game sound like a 49-7 defeat for Titans. They lost 13-10 in OT at Pittsburgh to a SB champ. They also gor 4 sacks. I would say their defense is fine Dude...our defense was good last year. We did not allow a team to score more than 25 points until the last game of the season. I'm not saying the Titans D was awful last night...please use some reading comprehension. I am simply saying that without Haynesworth, they could not collapse the pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share Posted September 13, 2009 You're wrong. There is another type of pressure. It's called occupying the lanes and being very strict about it, not allowing the QB a clear throwing or running lane. It doesn't net you sacks or anything flashy, but it makes the QB really uncomfortable because he basically has nowhere to go with his body, and thus, it even affects where he can throw it to on the field. This style works especially great against the type of QBs who like to move around a lot in the pocket, like Romo sits to pee. It's why he's never had really good games against us (except that one where TO killed us with Sean Taylor being out and Doughty starting for the first time in 07). The guys rushing on the edge can't take too wide of an angle, nor can the guys up the middle just leave their gaps and try to make move that'll open up a space for the QB to see through or run to. This alone makes it tougher for all the guys on the Dline to actually get to the QB for a sack, but what it does is make the QB have to throw the ball in an uncomfortable position, hopefully leading to INTs. That part obviously didn't work out, though we had a ton of errant throws... just couldn't capitalize. It's most likely why we brought in Haynesworth. I think he'll bring a shift in how we play as Art alluded to, but the question is how big of one will it be? So this is what Art is basically talking about when he mentions Blache and what he wanted out of his pass rush. He did get that, and it actually works pretty well. The only time it doesn't is when you face the truly elite passers in the league who just have a knack for getting the ball out on time and in rhythm. That's where it's important to get aggressive and play more of a risk/reward game. It's why the Pats destroyed us in 07, but barely hung in there against aggressive teams like the Ravens who were in what anyone would consider a lost season at that point. This is some serious homerism right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 No, Rock. It's not homerism whatsoever to recognize Blache made the No. 4 defense in the league, one that was great in most categories, by doing what he wanted for the most part, rather than what YOU wanted. Homerism is saying a bad defense was good. Idiocy is saying a good defense was bad. Submitted seems pretty swift in this conversation, because when one whines TOO loudly about the No. 4 defense in the league it does more to reveal that person's own lacking than the team's. Blache coaches line play looking for something very specific. Haynesworth spoke to that when he arrived and Blache indicated he may look for something else from Albert. We'll see. But, please stop pretending other people have no idea what they are talking about when you clearly are the one who lacks clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAfan47 Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Plus, our passing defense numbers were inflated by games against some of the worst passing offenses in the league last season. Seattle, Cincinnati and Cleveland were 29th, 30th and 31st in the league last year. Awful. St. Louis was 26th. Here's a zany prediction: the Raiders were 32nd in the league last year - I bet we do well against their passing attack last season too! That funny you choose to use the word inflated...Out of the 4 teams you named we or the Skins lost to 2 of them....Hey i got something for you to think about maybe the Skins passing D numbers were inflated do to playing the Saints, Cardinals, Eagles, and Cowboys. 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 9th in passing offenses. Oh and guess what we went 5-1 against those passing attack teams. So what do you think most contributed to the skins 4th ranked D in the NFL?...:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 That funny you choose to use the word inflated...Out of the 4 teams you named we or the Skins lost to 2 of them....Hey i got something for you to think about maybe the Skins passing D numbers were inflated do to playing the Saints, Cardinals, Eagles, and Cowboys. 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 9th in passing offenses. Oh and guess what we went 5-1 against those passing attack teams. So what do you think most contributed to the skins 4th ranked D in the NFL?...:doh: I didn't have the heart to point out to him the six games against Top 10 offenses in overall yardage and two more against Dallas who were Top 10 as a passing offense. Haters with an agenda and irrational hatred of the GOOD things on this team are not able to reason with all the facts, so they create ONLY facts that help them in their attempts to diminish what can't be diminished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 ... So what do you think most contributed to the skins 4th ranked D in the NFL?... Weak understanding of statistics mostly. The yardage rankings are deceptive. The best available stats online are at footballoutsiders.com. They had the Skins D ranked at #11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 When the offense scores fewer points than the Lions, Chiefs, Seahawks do the other team doesn't really need to score many times to win. Maybe that plays into us giving up so few yards. I would think so but I'm not a coach. Our own offense gets a decent amount of yards (19th) and eats clock, just doesn't score (28th). Our defense was 4th in yards, 6th in points. We were between Oakland and Detroit in points scored. Detroit rotated 4 different scrub QB's, had no OL, 1 single playmaker and they outscored us. Russel is looking like a bust. His top receiver last year had 22 catches for 366 yards, their run game was a 3 or 4 man rotation, lol. Still, they scored 2 points fewer than us. If we had the Patriots offense would our defense be #4? No way. Teams know we average 16 points a game and probably gameplanned to just not turn the ball over, stop Portis and beat us by default in the 2nd half of 2008. Now this year, with a guy like Hall in the backfield we may have to score more points in some games. He may provide a few extra TO's too, but he will surely bonehead it a few times and put Campbell to work. Unless this DL really is the real deal we may see a significant decrease in that #4 and #6 ranking for 5-6 more turnovers, unless Rogers starts catching balls too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Teams know we average 16 points a game and probably gameplanned to just not turn the ball over... . Defenses are supposed to make that difficult for them to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilkyDiamonds Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 The defensive stats last year were very nice, but they dont describe very well how, when and what situation those yards and points were gained. As Oldfan suggests, the Football Outsiders' stats are more DESCRIPTIVE, they tell more of the story in terms of how VALUABLE those stellar stats and rankings really are Giving up a 30 yard gain in a game where your either up by 2 or out right losing, in the 4th qtr has MORE negative value than that same run in the 3rd qtr of a game where your winning by 3 or more. (or giving up 7 on 3rd & 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.