Pick It Up

That was then:

 

Last season, the Steeler offense ranked 8^th throwing and 9^th rushing; this balance resulted in a mark of 5^th overall.� 2002 was a big change from the run-rich, pass-poor attack traditional here; off that, and considering the stellar quality of their top three WR, you might expect the PS offense to go all air all the time this season.

 

Don�t count on it.�

 

In the Cowher Era, the recipe for success has been �get out early and then grind time�.� Indeed, last season�s most convincing wins (Indy, Baltimore 1 and T-Bay) precisely followed that pattern.� In the first, the Steelers scored on their opening three possessions; in the second, on their opening four and, at Tampa Bay, they scored early twice, sandwiching Scott�s pick/TD.� In those three games, Maddox put it up 23, 24 and 23 times respectively; in contrast, his high attempt games were Houston (57), Cleveland 2 (42), Atlanta (41) and New Orleans (38).� The Steelers� mark was 1-2-1 over those four games; factor in (48) and (41) attempts in the playoff rounds and you can adjust that figure to 2-3-1.� Not good: while only the Houston loss can be laid on the offense, the fact remains that few teams have won championships without highly sound components in every aspect of the game.� Unlike some editions, this group figures as able to win a few shoot-outs, if that is required; however, that mode will be a last, not the first, resort.��

 

TOP wins and in each of the past two seasons, the Steelers have been #1 in that category.� The 2001 edition dominated (generally) featuring their #1 ranked rush attack yoked to their #1 D-side.� They had neither in 2002 but still did possess the clock, this despite 36 turnovers and a defense that certainly struggled in 3^rd down situations.� Why?� Well, mainly because they remained committed to the run; although just 9^th in yards rushing, the �02 edition was 3^rd in attempts.� They didn�t run it great last season but they did stay with it; more than likely, that persistence will endure through this season, and beyond.�

 

So was that famous 75-1-1 mark built.� That said, it�s absolutely apparent that the game has changed over the past (11) seasons; previously, the pro set was the norm and smash-mouth the standard but, as of last year if not before, quite a few teams feature some multi-wide or dual-TE alignments as their base, or co-base, set.� It�s outdoor Arena ball now and, maybe, that�s why the 1 and 1 (a late �01 loss in Cin-City and the tie with Atlanta last season) in that x-y-z are of recent vintage.� Factor in big leads near-blown last season over the out-manned Jags and Bengals and you�ve got to get the sense that some tactical adjustments may be due, or past due.

 

No doubt, but those won�t be on the O-side; the fact that, presuming they can field some semblance of an O-line, the Steelers do figure to pass effectively does not mean that they won�t run the ball, just that they won�t be forced to hammer repetitively against those once-ubiquitous 8-man fronts. �In the best case, they�ll run and throw with equal effect, say, like Oakland last season, a team that opened by grinding the Seahawks into their fake turf and then, in the following week, put it in the air over (60) times here.� Early on, the Raiders showed that they could win either pounding or passing the pig; that offensive balance (across games if not within any single one) took them to the threshold where, as we all recall, they flopped.� Tough break for Bad Al but then choosing pass over run against that T-Bay defense was just dumb; had the Raiders broken out their ground component, IMO, the result would have been very different.��

 

Of course, we don�t care about that; the PS have had considerable success against T-Bay over the past two years so, had those teams met in San Diego, we might reasonably have expected the same.� However, that was never a real possibility as, from the earliest weeks of the season past, it was apparent that the B&G were over-matched in certain crucial situations. You know I�m talking third down; here are the numbers:

 

	Total # 1st downs allowed	Rank overall	Of those, # on 3rd down	3rd down conversion rate allowed	Rank
2002	279	T-5 NFL, 1st AFC	98	43.6%	27th NFL
2001	254	2nd NFL	68	34.2%	7th NFL
2000	252	T-3 NFL	78	35.1%	8th NFL

 

It�s worth noting that the PS defense has been more highly ranked in the overall category than on 3^rd down conversions for each of the last three seasons.� This suggests that, in general, the base has been somewhat more effective (yielding fewer conversions on 1^st and 2^nd downs vs. the league leaders) than the packages.� However, until last season that difference was slight while, in 2002, the gap was abysmal.� For example, considering only the past two years, we see that the 2002 Steelers yielded (25) more 1^st downs total than did the 2001 edition; the 3^rd down differential (30) more than accounts for that.� (Note:� See Asking Tim Lewis for that number of 3^rd down failures that occurred on 3^rd and 6, or longer).

 

In point of fact, those 2002 packages were actually much worse than the final numbers show.� After back-to-back opening abuse, the 3^rd down allowance was +50%; as the season wore on, that fell only slightly until the 4-game stretch from Jacksonville through T-Bay.� Then, the Steelers held the Jags and Texans to a combined 17%; they did fairly well against the Panthers and King-Bucs too.� However, that trend collapsed in the close against Baltimore and, as we all remember, the playoff rate returned to the opening +50%.� All in all, the B&G stopped most bad teams on 3^rd down but failed, front-to-back, in dealing with those offenses in the mid, let alone upper, echelon.�

 

So developed the nickel, so the trade-up to get Troy Polamalu; now, whether those moves will pay out remains to be seen.� Logically though, we should get past a popular misconception, that being that 2002 opponents threw the ball inordinately more than in previous seasons.� Considering two prior to this:

 

Regular season stats	2001	2002	Remarks
Pass attempts by opponents	525	573
Sacks by Steelers	�55	� 50	The 2001 sack rate was 55/580 or about 9.5%.� The 2002 sack rate was 50/623 or about 8%.� Applying the 2001 sack efficiency rate to the 2002 # of passes called (PPC) we�d have seen 61 sacks, not 50.
Total: pass plays called by opponents. (PPC)	580	623
Total # runs by opponents	339	359	In 2001, the Steelers stuffed 74/339 run plays, an astonishing 22%.� In 2002, the Steelers stuffed 45/359 run plays, a rate of 12.5%.� Applying the 2001 rate to the 2002 attempt #, we�d have seen 78 stuffs, not 45.
Total:� # plays by opponents (TNP)	919	982	Having given up (30) more 1st downs, the 2002 Steelers faced (63) more plays.� Why not ninety, or more?� Well, on the plus side, the 2002 Steelers did have (36) takeaways.�
% of pass plays	63% (0.6311)	63% (0.6344)

 

On a percentage basis, there was no difference in the two seasons; figure the 2002 pass play % against the 2001 TNP and you get 583 passes called in 2001, rather than 580.� Inverting those figures, you get 620 passes called in 2002, rather than 623.� That�s trivial but the drop-off from 2001 to 2001 in sack % and stuff % cited in the Remarks column above is not.� Much of that decline in TFL (defined here as sack + stuff) is found in the LB stats; you can review those in the D-side Overview published last winter.� For now, suffice it to say that the scheme revisions on which Coach Lewis labored last winter have everything to do with getting his Front 7 playmakers in a position to make plays, and far less to do with his DB personnel.

 

Certainly, there were a couple of oddities in the Steelers� scheming last season:

 

• Several teams, notably the Titans and T-Bucs used nickel as a base or co-base set.� The Steelers had no nickel scheme at all.

 

• Hampton, Bell and Farrior were brought in as playmakers; in fact, their impact is largely responsible for the enormous upgrade in Front 7 performance from the bad old days of 2000.� Insane it may be but the fact is that, far more often than not last season, all were off the field in package situations.

 

Well, that was then and this isn�t.� Matching opponents� expected O-side sets to those on the 2003 PS D-side, seen or presumed:

 

	OKIE	Heavy Nickel	Nickel, 3 CB	Porter Dime	3 Down Dime
RB/FB, 2 WR, 1 TE	*
RB/FB, 1 WR, 2 TE	*	* Questionable.
RB/FB, 3 WR		*	*
RB, 2 TE, 2 WR		*
RB, 4 Wide			* Assumes RB and/or TE split	* 4 WR
Empty Set					*
Explanation	Base 3-4	KVO out, 3rd S in	KVO out, 3rd CB in	6th DB in for Farrior.	3-2-6, as per �Postscript, April, �03�

 

More on all that in some unit-by-unit article to follow the last cuts; for now:

 

What we saw Saturday:

 

�No surprise, the Lions beat the Steeler O-line from front to back in the pre-season opener.� Oliver Ross allowed antique speed rusher Robert Porcher to collect T-Max on the opening snap; shortly, WOLB Barrett Green split Faneca and Hartings for two.� Later, Maddox somehow eluded Uber-athlete Boss Bailey but no way can that be any staple this season.� Facing an undersized, under-manned D-line (neither Luther Elliss nor Kalimba Edwards dressed for Detroit), the PS got nothing done on the ground.� In sum, the Steeler O-line was stunningly awful and it is an open question whether that unit can rise to any playoff-caliber level.� Still, a couple of points are worth considering:

 

• Wayne Gandy figures to have a better 2003 than, say, either Breuner or Bettis but the fact is that the PS got outbid for that man�s service.� Gandy is gone and, unless the FO was willing to tie up, say, 7M in the OT position for 2003 within two contracts averaging around 10M/year over their terms, that�s the way it is, that�s the way it goes. �Considering that Hartings and Faneca weigh in at that kind of number, the FO had to get Gandy virtually for free, or not at all.�

 

• Oliver Ross isn�t the answer.� Sometime ago, there was such a thing as a power-side and a finesse side but in today�s areNa-F and L, that�s all over.� Okay, Ross is an aggressive mauling type OT but he has bad feet, he plays top-heavy and reacts to an outside rush with all the alacrity of an 80-year woman chasing a purse-snatcher.� Todd Fordham is no candidate for Canton but he�s the best the Steelers have at ROT; Fordham did have (29) starts (on both sides) in Jacksonville over the past 3 seasons.� Asked to fill in for the great Tony Boselli in 2000, Fordham did well enough that the Jags finished 5^th in the NFL with just under 250 yards passing.� On the downside, they had no real run game and Brunell went down 54 times; however, Fast Freddy sat it out, as I recall, and, for sure, the Jag interior trio was no better than, say, Collins, Okobi and Vincent.� Still, what the PS has got now is what they�ve got and Fordham is at the top of the heap.�

 

• The Steelers came in with two of their top six interior O-linemen carrying health issues and left with three, what with Okobi chipping an ankle.� Calvin Collins got to get some work at OC; Hartings figures to be week-to-week or worse all season and, with Okobi dinged, the PS has got to get some flexibility inside.� Double-C had 21 starts at OC for the Falcons (32 at OG); while IMO Kendall Simmons is Dawson�s true heir, his time is forward of here while the PS need an answer now.�

 

With 3 of 5 spots in the air, the Steeler O-line figures to gel late this season, if at all.� If there is a positive to take from the pre-opening debacle with the Lions, it is that the 1^st unit pass defense did play effectively.� However:

 

• Charles Rogers didn�t suit up.� Rogers is a big WR, and the Steelers have handled those types; however, Rogers has speed and the PS have struggled to deal with that component.� The Lions didn�t get a lot done in the air but, then again, they played without their #1 WR and, for that matter, their #3, as Az Hakim sat it out too.�

 

• The second unit DB didn�t look good.� Polamalu figures to struggle early and so does Ike Taylor.� The most disturbing aspect was a play where Chidi Iwuoma had perfect position but got out-muscled for the ball.� Troy and Ike figure to improve with experience but Chidi does not figure to get bigger.� At this point, that is your #4 CB; pound for pound and inch for inch, Iwuoma is a fine player; however, he�s far too small ever to truly factor.

 

Simmons and Fordham didn�t play; neither did Poteat, Leonard Scott and Mike Cook.� That�s five; twelve sat it out for the Lions including two starting D-linemen, two of their top three WR and Little Man.� Scheme and want-to on the part of the coaching staffs factored but, health-wise, the PS had an advantage; don�t let anyone tell you different.�