Pro Football Weekly 2012 Preview

[Deus Irae]

...Personally, I think if Pitt takes a step back, it won't be due to the "age" factor that the national pundits are fond of citing. (The reality is, of the older players who were let go this year, only James Farrior was a regular contributor last season...and he was often a liability). Rather, it will be due to a new offensive system, a tough early schedule, a tough division and maybe more than anything the adjustment that will have to take place with the leadership on this team internally. I think they will be a very good and dangerous team by the end of the season, but whether they make postseason noise will depend largely on whether their offensive and leadership adjustments translate to too many losses early on.

Polamalu is going to be 31, and he's missed time in 4 of the last 6 seasons. Harrison is going to be 34, Taylor 32, Keisel 34, Clark 33 and Foote 32, and the Denver Tebows made that defense look old. I think it's fair to wonder about age/injury impacting that defense.

 

[lillloyd]

Polamalu is going to be 31, and he's missed time in 4 of the last 6 seasons. Harrison is going to be 34, Taylor 32, Keisel 34, Clark 33 and Foote 32, and the Denver Tebows made that defense look old. I think it's fair to wonder about age/injury impacting that defense.

Fair to wonder about age/injury at OLB and the defensive backfield? Absolutely (more so at OLB, where they're not as high on the young guys as they are in the secondary, where they've got several prospects they like).

That said, I seriously doubt their defense is going to fall through the floorboards, either. They seem more likely IMO next year to be a top ten D than a bottom ten D, age notwithstanding. Warts and all, this was still a team that went 12-4 in a tough division, and had the #1 ranked defense in PA and yards. They did a pretty decent job against NE week 8...I don't think they've aged *that* much since then.

Understand, I'm not saying that age isn't a factor...obviously it is. I just think it's somewhat overblown. They still have the nucleus of an excellent defense intact, and they have been stockpiling younger guys at areas of age (except safety), some of whom will likely become good players.

 

[patfanken]

It may just be the homer in me, but I don't understand why so many (and not just you mind you, but many national pundits as well) are dropping Pitt. This is the same team that actually beat NE in what was arguably their worst loss (outside of the SB of course). They subsequently went through a bunch of injuries, and obviously didn't play well in Denver...but ultimately this is the same team, minus one major contributor (James Farrior) that had the #1 defense in the league last year, and might have made a lot more postseason noise with better luck on the health front.

More generally, at the risk of being "master of the obvious", good organizations with proven postseason QBs are almost always going to be at the head of the class when the SB comes around. NE, GB, NO, the NYG...and yes even Pitt fall into this category. I wouldn't bet against any of them.

Your points are well taken. I think there are several reasons that pundits and even casual fans like myself feel that the Steelers are due for a down season. They may or may not make sense or even be valid, but its just a perception that could drastically change if a bunch of your younger guys make significant leaps in production.

1. DI's points about age and injury issues to several key players

2. The bringing in of the new OC and the possible problems that that transition could bring

3. The perception that Steelers are falling behind the Ravens

4. The perception that the Bengals are loaded with young talent and are being well run (for a change)

5. The beating that Ben takes might start to take a toll

6. The fact the Steelers will be counting on 2 rookies to play a significant role on their OL

None of these things might turn out to be problems in the end. BUT the current "perception" is that the Steelers will have a tough time winning their division. But your are right in one sense. You have a good a organization HC, QB, WR's and defense. That puts you in the mix, and if the last few superbowls have taught us anything is that, if you can get to the playoffs, anything can happen.....good and bad.

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[lillloyd]

I have the print copy of the Pro Football Weekly 2012 Season Preview magazine so there is no link.

Predictions for the AFCE:

Patriots 12-4
Bills 8-8
Jets 7-9
Fins- 4-12

AFC Champions: Your NE Patriots
Super Bowl Champion: SF 49'ers

top 50 NFL Players:
#2 TFB (aaron rogers #1)
#13 Gronk
#34 Big Vince
#39 Welker
There is more good stuff in the mag but that is all I feel like typing for now and enough to comment about.

FWIW, it seems that teams that break out in a major way--like the 49ers did last year--often take a step back the year after. They may actually be a better team, but the combination of a much tougher schedule and increased scrutiny can take a toll on the bottom line W-L record.

Personally I would be surprised if the 49ers made it out of the NFC. I do think they're a team on the rise...it's just that the trajectory of teams "on the rise" tends to be more zigzag than a linear push upwards.

 

[lillloyd]

Your points are well taken. I think there are several reasons that pundits and even casual fans like myself feel that the Steelers are due for a down season. They may or may not make sense or even be valid, but its just a perception that could drastically change if a bunch of your younger guys make significant leaps in production.

1. DI's points about age and injury issues to several key players

2. The bringing in of the new OC and the possible problems that that transition could bring

3. The perception that Steelers are falling behind the Ravens

4. The perception that the Bengals are loaded with young talent and are being well run (for a change)

5. The beating that Ben takes might start to take a toll

6. The fact the Steelers will be counting on 2 rookies to play a significant role on their OL

None of these things might turn out to be problems in the end. BUT the current "perception" is that the Steelers will have a tough time winning their division. But your are right in one sense. You have a good a organization HC, QB, WR's and defense. That puts you in the mix, and if the last few superbowls have taught us anything is that, if you can get to the playoffs, anything can happen.....good and bad.

Thanks for stopping by.

I actually agree that Pitt could take a step back, largely due to the OC change and potential leadership void. I'm just a bit surprised at how far back some folks think they will fall (but who knows, they may be right).

The irony regarding Pitt's injuries last year was that a most of the major ones (Colon for the year, Woodley for half the season, Pouncey/Ben at the end of the year/playoffs, various other OL injuries) were almost all to guys in their *20s*, not their 30s. Sometimes the injuries are just due to lousy luck, not age (see: Texans, Houston

 

[Reckedtrek]

Almost all teams suffer significant injuries every season. The teams with the most depth and players who can do more than one thing (adding to the depth, in turn) stand a much better chance of succeeding or at least going further into the playoffs than those teams without that depth.

Since most teams experience injuries, it becomes a non issue. For every fan of any particular team that says "only if Xxxx wasn't hurt" there are fans of 26+ teams that can say the same thing.

 

[Ron Sellers]

In response to the previous comments about the Steelers, I think that a lot of people that don't follow the team closely saw several familiar veteran names being released and jumped to the incorrect conclusion that they are headed towards a sudden downfall. In reality in most cases the replacements are already in place.

Similarly many assume the Ravens are old because of Ray Lewis and Ed Reed, and some stop-gap wide receivers that they signed last year. In reality their OL is old but they addressed that in the draft, and the rest of the defense is young.

To me the report of the demise of either of these teams is premature. Teams with good management reload and continue to be competitive.

 

[Deus Irae]

In response to the previous comments about the Steelers, I think that a lot of people that don't follow the team closely saw several familiar veteran names being released and jumped to the incorrect conclusion that they are headed towards a sudden downfall. In reality in most cases the replacements are already in place.

Similarly many assume the Ravens are old because of Ray Lewis and Ed Reed, and some stop-gap wide receivers that they signed last year. In reality their OL is old but they addressed that in the draft, and the rest of the defense is young.

To me the report of the demise of either of these teams is premature. Teams with good management reload and continue to be competitive.

The Steelers have semi-frequently had "down" years during the BB Era. That's how they got Roethlisberger. Beginning in 2000:

9-7
13
10
6
15
11
8
10
12
9
12
12

The bolded numbers are the win totals they had when they missed the playoffs. It's happened 4 times during that time, every 3rd year. The Ravens have also missed the playoffs 4 times during that stretch, again all in seasons with single digit win totals (they also made the playoffs one season with a 9-7 record).

I'm not saying that either team's going in the tank (my post was just about whether I'd rank them in the league's top 7, but it's not as if lesser years, or missing the playoffs, never happens for them.

 

[goheels22002]

I look on the AFC race as having 3 tiers.

On top you have the Pats, Ravens, and Texans - Then comes the Steelers, KC, and Cinci - After that you have the Bills, Jets, Titans and SD. The first tier teams have all been discussed. KC and Cinci have a lot of very good young talent, and while the Steelers have dropped out of the elite tier, they are still very dangerous. The Bills could also have been in the 2nd tier, but lack any recent success. The Jets have a top notch defense, and SD a top notch QB Both can make the playoffs because of that. I think the Titans are going to surprise some people this year. I just hope that one of them isn't the Pats.

All 10 teams can make cases to reach the superbowl, though some better than others

You can draw similar conclusions for the NFC, though I think they have a larger number of really good teams - The Eagles, Niners, and Packers, are the elite. The Bears, Giants, and Dallas, are just a step below, and the Saints, Falcons, and Lions, are 3 good teams that are better than the bottom tier teams in the AFC.

What about the Broncos with Peyton Manning?

That's a pretty solid defense and the offense begins with a better than average running game. Add Manning and you get a top 10 (in the AFC) team. How competitive is the main question, but certainly in the conversation.

Oakland with Carson Palmer is the other team that merits consideration as a playoff contender.

I seriously do not think the Jets are a playoff team with the mess they have in the locker room, at receiver and the idiotic QB controversy they inflicted on themselves.

 

[Patriot 37]

Polamalu is going to be 31, and he's missed time in 4 of the last 6 seasons. Harrison is going to be 34, Taylor 32, Keisel 34, Clark 33 and Foote 32, and the Denver Tebows made that defense look old. I think it's fair to wonder about age/injury impacting that defense.

You are dead on, plus Hampton's 35 whose is there back up NT ? Their D won't be bad but I expect a decline.

 

[lillloyd]

Almost all teams suffer significant injuries every season. The teams with the most depth and players who can do more than one thing (adding to the depth, in turn) stand a much better chance of succeeding or at least going further into the playoffs than those teams without that depth.

Since most teams experience injuries, it becomes a non issue. For every fan of any particular team that says "only if Xxxx wasn't hurt" there are fans of 26+ teams that can say the same thing.

I agree to a point, and certainly injuries even out across teams over time. The longer the time band you're looking at, the more "even" it becomes. But I would argue that it is definitely not a "non-issue" *within* a given year.

Clearly certain teams will be hurt more--or more hurt at an obviously critical position (QB)--than others in a given year, with disastrous results...particularly if those teams are real contenders (it can be the difference between a quick exit and a serious SB run). And it's not really the number of injuries, but where and when (what portion of the season/postseason) they happen, that makes a big difference.

For example, take the Texans last year (who I think would have been *extremely* dangerous had "TJ Yates" not been playing QB). Or closer to home, Tom Brady in '08 for the Pats. It's hard to imagine many other teams suffering equivalent injuries in terms of impact in those years.

I take your point though about depth. A team with relatively few injuries can still be severely impacted if they all "collect" on the same unit. I think the Pats were actually one of one or two teams that actually had more games missed than Pitt on the OL...but for Pitt this was an area of weakness even before the injuries. The Pats OTOH with better depth were able to deal with the OL injuries more capably, which is a mark of a good, deep team. (That said the Pats were probably less well-equipped to deal with the health issues in their secondary than most other teams.) My only point re/ Pitt was that it really wasn't the older guys getting hurt...it was mostly a bunch of guys in their 20s. Not much correlation between age and injury, last year anyway.

Football outsiders does a pretty good job of show injury totals by unit (although they don't show when the injuries occur): FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2011 Adjusted Games Lost for Team Units