the difference in the defense between this week and last

[elandadem]

You obviously don't get it then.

The Steelers converted on fourth down several times in that game. If our offense isn't mercilessly moving the ball on them maybe the Steelers punt and the Pats' defense doesn't even have to make the stop on third and one (or fourth and one).

If the Pats offense isn't putting up points like it's going out of business, the defense isn't forced to stop them twice at the one yard line because the Steelers would have kicked the field goal. And throwing the ball on third and 1 isn't exactly crazy play calling.

The two punts that the defense forced in the third quarter were with leads of 4 and 11 points, not nearly as overwhelming as you imply.

The defense had lapses on several drives, but for the most part they played a good game. Averages would tell you otherwise.

Which game did you watch?

It's the "Bend but Do Not Break" Concept. Admittedly, it bent a little more than one would have hoped but it did hold.

 

[ALP]

dont look at those numbers...

we had better pressure agaisnt PIT, our front 7 did a LOT better...and our secondary covered a lot better as well, hobbs especially, didnt play like he was in JV

 

[RayClay]

uh, did you watch? he didn't have any.

anyways, I said in my OP that Boller had a better day than Ben. but the run defense was still bad.

Therefore..........he didn't have a great influence on Rottenburger rushing passes?

What do run statistics matter when you win by three touchdowns?

 

[RayClay]

I'm saying that the score can be deceiving with regard to how the team actually played.

Pats gameplan obviously took into account they felt they could score big on Pittsburgh, especially their safeties.

They put up 34.

All they needed was to stop the big play.

The score was not deceiving at all, they outscored them by three touchdowns.

That's why they keep score.

 

[bradmahn]

the Steelers going on 4th down those times is actually optimal strategy. they should be doing that..

so to recap, the Steelers had 4 2nd half drives before the final useless one:

the Pats forced 2 "3 and outs".
on 1 other, the Steelers drove 56 yards to the 1. there the drive stalled, but almost always they will come away with points there. it turned out ok for us THIS time, but normally won't.

then on the 4th drive, they drive 57 yards, and b/c they are down by 21 points, they choose not to kick a 37 yard FG.

this is not great defense

I agree it's "optimal strategy," but that doesn't mean they attempt them without being down by 21. Just as they were "forced" to go for the TDs in the endzone, they were "forced" to go for the fourth down plays.

Generally, those situations where the opponent "almost always come away with points there" are field goals. Two trips into the red zone that yield no TDs is great situational defense.

My problem with your assessment is not that you think they didn't play great (because they didn't play great defense throughout, but they made the crucial stops when they had to, ie., the first two possessions of the half and the red zone stops), my issue with your assessment is that you eschew the situational "stuff" and are basing your assessments on the stat sheet. On top of that, you are using the "because they were down by 21" argument to criticize the defense to suit your argument, but continue to use the 5+ ypc statistic despite it also being greatly effected by the fact that the defense was playing nickel and prevent on many of the carries by the Steelers in the fourth quarter. You are cherry picking.

If I'm not mistaken, you've also said in the past that the 2004 Patriots defense was a great defense, yet the type of game the Pats played yesterday (Bend-but-don't-break) was exactly the type of game that those Patriots played all that year.

 

[bradmahn]

Which game did you watch?

It's the "Bend but Do Not Break" Concept. Admittedly, it bent a little more than one would have hoped but it did hold.

I watched the same game that you did.

The question to be asking is not "which game did you watch?" it's "Which thread are you reading?" that would make you think I was saying anything other than the Patriots playing a good "bend-but-don't-break" defense.

 

[makewayhomer]

but continue to use the 5+ ypc statistic despite it also being greatly effected by the fact that the defense was playing nickel and prevent on many of the carries by the Steelers in the fourth quarter. You are cherry picking.

I dont have the #'s, but my guess is that YPC was nearly as bad in the first half when we played much more base defense.

If I'm not mistaken, you've also said in the past that the 2004 Patriots defense was a great defense, yet the type of game the Pats played yesterday (Bend-but-don't-break) was exactly the type of game that those Patriots played all that year.

agree, we played a lot of "bend but don't break" both then and now. but "bend but don't break" doesn't mean you let them down to your 1 and then stop them. that was certainly not intended.

as others have said, the difference in the game yesterday was our OFFENSE. if the offense plays like it did last week (or if the Pittsburgh D played like the Baltimore D) then this game probably ends up pretty close to the Baltimore game.

that's my point.

 

[makewayhomer]

another great reading comprehension job ray.

I never said or implied this:

Therefore..........he didn't have a great influence on Rottenburger rushing passes?

What do run statistics matter when you win by three touchdowns?

hmm, lemme think...B/C WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR DEFENSE?? AND NOT OUR OFFENSE?

 

[RayClay]

another great reading comprehension job ray.

I never said or implied this:





hmm, lemme think...B/C WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR DEFENSE?? AND NOT OUR OFFENSE?

You play a different type of defense depending on your offense. It's called game planning.

When you win by 3 touchdowns, it's a fair bet that you selected the right offensive and defensive game plans, executed them to perfection, or both.

 

[makewayhomer]

You play a different type of defense depending on your offense. It's called game planning.

When you win by 3 touchdowns, it's a fair bet that you selected the right offensive and defensive game plans, executed them to perfection, or both.

I'd say it's fair bet that when a team runs basically at will against you, and is 1 yard away from scoring their 20th point, your defense was executed far from "perfect".

the 2004 AFC Championship game, when we allowed 3 points to the best offense in years? THAT was perfection.

but if you think we were great last night, awesome

 

[RayClay]

I'd say it's fair bet that when a team runs basically at will against you, and is 1 yard away from scoring their 20th point, your defense was executed far from "perfect".

the 2004 AFC Championship game, when we allowed 3 points to the best offense in years? THAT was perfection.

but if you think we were great last night, awesome

They won by 21 points. That's a lot. I'm really reaching to understand what you fail to grasp here.

 

[makewayhomer]

They won by 21 points. That's a lot. I'm really reaching to understand what you fail to grasp here.

I'm trying to grasp why I'm bothering to explain to you that 2 inputs go into winning differential: Points Scored and Points Allowed, and I started this thread to talk about Points Allowed. (actually, to talk about Defense, but whatever).

if you win 100-70, your defense sucked. get it?

 

[bradmahn]

I dont have the #'s, but my guess is that YPC was nearly as bad in the first half when we played much more base defense.



agree, we played a lot of "bend but don't break" both then and now. but "bend but don't break" doesn't mean you let them down to your 1 and then stop them. that was certainly not intended.

as others have said, the difference in the game yesterday was our OFFENSE. if the offense plays like it did last week (or if the Pittsburgh D played like the Baltimore D) then this game probably ends up pretty close to the Baltimore game.

that's my point.

Yard per carry in the first half was 5.07. That's crappy, but if we delve deeper and look at that on a per carry basis, we realize that the run defense was not as bad as that stat would lead one to believe.

The Steelers carried the ball thirteen times on designed runs (this does not include runs by Roethlisberger), the totals are as follows: 2, -2, 0, 9, 1, 3, 4, 30, 3, 5, 1, 2, and 8 (with this carry coming with forty-two seconds left in the half and the Steelers content with killing the clock and ending the half). What does that tell me about the run defense? That, with the exception of a thirty yard jaunt by Parker, it was pretty good.

In the second half Parker began their possession with another long run of 19 yards, and then totals were 1, 4, 8, 7, 2, 3, 3, and 0 before the Patriots took a 21 point lead. The Steelers then gained 24 yards on 3 carries when the Patriots were playing prevent D with seven minutes left in the game. And 20 yards on 3 carries when they were running out the clock.

They definitely need to tighten up and not allow those runs of 8+ yards, but the defense played a lot better than the yard per carry average would indicate, and that's from the beginning of the game up until seven minutes left in the fourth quarter.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I think the Pats played better defensively against Pittsburgh than they did against Baltimore. This is not to say they were stellar vs. Pittsburgh, but better. The reason is that Baltimore's offense revolves around McGahee, yet the Pats had a horrible time stopping him for 3 quarters. Pittsburgh's is more versatile so there's more to genuinely worry about.

Once the Pats started selling out to stop McGahee in the 4th quarter, the Ravens' offense expectedly went into the tank. There's no way IMO the Pats would have done something similar to Parker, for fear of getting picked apart on throws to Ward, Holmes and Miller.

Regards,
Chris

 

[RayClay]

I'm trying to grasp why I'm bothering to explain to you that 2 inputs go into winning differential: Points Scored and Points Allowed, and I started this thread to talk about Points Allowed. (actually, to talk about Defense, but whatever).

if you win 100-70, your defense sucked. get it?

Do you think the Patriots game plan defense and offense separately?

You realize they used to let Edgerrin James run so they could play special pass defenses the whole game. He had high YPC and they won.

If you won 100-70 (highly unlikely), your defensive game plan led to a 30 point win.

You have problems with concepts, it seems.

 

[RayClay]

I think the Pats played better defensively against Pittsburgh than they did against Baltimore. This is not to say they were stellar vs. Pittsburgh, but better. The reason is that Baltimore's offense revolves around McGahee, yet the Pats had a horrible time stopping him for 3 quarters. Pittsburgh's is more versatile so there's more to genuinely worry about.

Once the Pats started selling out to stop McGahee in the 4th quarter, the Ravens' offense expectedly went into the tank. There's no way IMO the Pats would have done something similar to Parker, for fear of getting picked apart on throws to Ward, Holmes and Miller.

Regards,
Chris

I felt their defense accomplished what it needed to. No big plays, a big goal line stop. Harrison was all over the field.

They allowed one runner a little over 100 yards in a 21 point win.

If you start from your own 20, it takes 240 yards to rush for 3 touchdowms, an unlikely scenario.

 

[patsox23]

I think the Pats played better defensively against Pittsburgh than they did against Baltimore. This is not to say they were stellar vs. Pittsburgh, but better.

This is as close as I come to agreeing with an ENTIRE point made by any one poster in this thread. The Pats D didn't play great - they were helped a LOT by how much better the O played this week. It made Pitt's attack more one-dimensional. But they were improved. Hope they keep improving because, in my view, they weren't "better enough" to handily beat, say, Indy or the Cowboys.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

The difference in this game and last game is not the defense at all, it's that our offense put pressure on their offense early. If we go up early and start forcing the other team to keep up, it's a totally different kind of game. If we let the other team play close and dictate the tempo, it can be close. Make no mistake about it, this team wins with their offense. This is a world class offense and an average to slightly above average defense.

I agree.

And the funny thing is that we generate so much more interest from the general media when winning with offense. We are considered the greatest team because we score points, but not in 2003-2004 when we limited points more and still had good offense.

I guess that is the Dolts effect. People want to see points on the board.

 

[Ring 6]

This is why they say statistics are for losers.
Our D allowed 13 points. Nothing else really matters.
We can count up the 30 yard run, or the garbage time yards, or whatever you want, but ultimately the Steelers did not run the ball well enough to score points on us.
I'm fine with our D allowing rushing yards, particularly a few big chunks that do not add up to sustaining drives. Especially when those runs fail to set up a passing game that can get points against us.
I think I read somewhere in this thread that it reflects badly on our D that we had a goalline stand and stopped a 4th and goal. Wow, what are you drinking?
In 60 minutes of football, the only TD our defense allowed was on a broken play where a 250 lb RB got deep, and the pass would have been EASILY picked off, if Hobbs didnt assume that Davenport was going straight up the field rather than cutting to the middle. I have absolutely no doubt hobbs felt he had perfect coverage (just watch how he reacts to the route) and was in position for an Int if Roethlisberger threw there. Ubfortunately he forgot to turn his head and kept backing straight up.
Thats it, the only TD they could score on us.

I'm sure the Steelers feel pretty good about those rushing stats that surround their impotent day of offense.

 

[Ring 6]

This is as close as I come to agreeing with an ENTIRE point made by any one poster in this thread. The Pats D didn't play great - they were helped a LOT by how much better the O played this week. It made Pitt's attack more one-dimensional. But they were improved. Hope they keep improving because, in my view, they weren't "better enough" to handily beat, say, Indy or the Cowboys.

IIRC, the defense played almost 20 minutes in the first half. They allowed 13 points with the only TD coming on a play i would bet they defend 98% of the time.
In the 2nd half, we started with 4 and out, and 3 and out. By that time we led 31-13. With 3:49 left in the 3rd.
I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with a defense that allows a 6 minute drive at that point, with an 18 point lead, and less than 19 minutes left in the game, and then stops a 4th and goal.
The 77 yards that came after that with a 21 point lead, well, who really cares.
And 5/14 on 3rd down, plus 0/3 in the red zone, and 13 points allowed means more than any other stats, especially rushing yards that you can list.