Ask Tim Lewis, but don�t expect a straight answer:
I�ve been a supporter if not an avid fan of Coach Lewis because, on the record, he�s earned it.� In 2000, Mr. Lewis took command of a Steeler defense that had been serially abused throughout the previous two campaigns.� Going into his maiden season that group had shucked Travis Davis and Jeremy no-Staat but their replacements, Alex and KVO were, at best, marginal FA.� Still, under Lewis�s direction the unit performance improved and in the following year, with two quality rookies on-board (Hampton and Bell), the D-side went to the top.
That didn�t last; we all know what happened last year and, on balance, you�ve got to conclude that the Steeler brain trust fell asleep at the switch.� However, I was willing to give Mr. Lewis the benefit of doubt; improvement in two of three seasons is some accomplishment and, even now, the balance is positive.� That is, the 2002 group was better than the 2000 unit and far better than the rather hopeless aggregate fielded here in �98 and �99.� However, the Q&A sessions (part of the series titled Ask the Steelers) published recently on-line at www.steelers.com (and linked on this site�s Home Page) do give me pause.� You can check them yourself, if you�ve got a yen for doubletalk; I�ll not repeat all that here but consider some portions:
One fan asked Coach Lewis whether he�d considered fielding a dime with two linebackers.� To this, the great man replied:
�That means you only have room for three others so you can�t use the dime because the dime has four down front.��
Well, that is a categorical error; the dime refers to the number of D-backs on the field, the term has nothing to do with the configuration of the other five players.� Coach Lewis�s syllogism is analogous to a motorcycle enthusiast who denies that bicycles exist because his Indian has two wheels.� It�s fairly evident that Mr. Lewis didn�t want to answer the question; the alternative being that the man is as dumb as a rock.
Aside from that disingenuous logic, the facts are otherwise.� Anyone who saw the Bucs play this year could watch them often defend the pass out of a 3-man front.� That�s McFarland on the nose, Sapp at LDE and Rice at RDE.� Now, it is true that the Steelers didn�t have that kind of personnel; essentially their D-line unit consisted of (6) DT and Keisel.� Absent any legit DE, the Steelers did what they did; however, that absent capacity doesn�t exclude the actual fact that the 3-man front is allowable, and that it is employed often enough.� Truly, 3-men upfront may be the ideal configuration against the empty set that so bedeviled the B&G this season past; though that is not to suggest a 3-man only pass rush but rather to offer that the Steelers� prime pass rushers operate best from off the LOS.
Mr. Lewis continued:
� It might be better suited to ask if we are using nickel and if we are going to keep Kendrell Bell on the field as one of the inside linebackers along with Joey Porter and not have Mike Logan on the field.�
I�m all in favor of pairing Bell with Porter as package LB; however, it is not obvious to me that Logan would have had to sit.� In fact, the personnel problem Mr. Lewis faced amounts to this:
- His best pass rushers were Porter and Bell; those men were also his most athletic LB and, as such, best suited to defend the pass.
- Both Porter and Bell are both quicker and faster than last year�s starting safety tandem, Flowers and Alexander.
Disregarding that dilemma, Coach Lewis expounded:
�The question is whether or not you can adjust to all the different formations as easily as you can with a dime player.� If people put 4 WR on the field, that would call for Bell having to go out and cover one of those receivers� You just don�t want to put people of lesser quickness, greater size against people that are very quick smaller��
True but that mismatch is exactly what happened any time either Alex or Flowers had coverage duty.� Logan might be quicker than Bell but surely neither Alex nor Flowers were.� The problem with the 2002 dime was that, at most, four DB on the Steeler roster had any quickness at all.�� The issue should not have been Bell vs. Logan; it should have been Bell vs. Flowers and Logan vs. Alex.
There�s also the observable fact that, as often as not, the empty sets featured by Steeler opponents included just 3 WR with dual TE or a single TE with a RB set out.� You�d think LB or safeties could match up with the latter pairs but, of course, we�ve been over that before.�
Beyond that, smaller and quicker isn�t necessarily the trend, at least we could deduce as much from another oracular utterance as, answering a different question, Coach Lewis had this to say:
�� Have receivers and the size of players made the game a little different in what you are looking for?� Yes they have� That is a very astute observation in your question.�
Coach cited Jurevicius, Keyshawn and Spike as WR whose existence compel an imperative on locating large cover CB.�� However, if there was any single receiver type that the 2002 Steelers could cover it was the large, lumbering WR.� Jurevicius got nothing done against the PS and Keyshawn had stats but no impact on that game; the same is true for Muhammad of the Panthers.� In contrast, TE like Heap and Wychek killed the B&G, as did smaller WR like Branch and Northcutt.� The Steelers need package CB who can run and safeties that can deal with TE; there�s your astute observation.
Even the casually attentive fan may have noticed the Steelers� problems on 3rd down last year; indeed, Coach Lewis was queried on this point.� While his answer could be characterized as less than forthcoming, or aggressively defensive in a way that his packages were not, or worthless blather, a considerable point did emerge.� That is, in 3rd down situations, Coach conceives an acceptable �win� rate that varies according to distance.� To paraphrase, that is:
- 3rd and 1 to 3, Coach expects to win maybe 20%.
- 3rd and 6 to 9, Coach expects to win over 67%.
- 3rd and 10 or more, Coach expects to win 90%.
Well, let�s do the numbers.�
(Actually,� we� don�t have to; please read the acknowledgment at the
end of this article.)
|
Situation |
# of times faced in 2002 |
Actual # of stops |
Expected # of stops |
Remarks |
|
3rd and 1 to 3 |
66 |
24 |
@ 20%, we�d expect only 13 |
In short yardage, the
Steeler base group had a stop rate 1.85 times the rate expected.� That is, the Steelers nearly doubled their
coach�s benchmark in short yardage situations. |
|
3rd and 6 to 9 |
71 |
38 |
@ 67% or better, we�d
expect 48. |
The Steeler packages
factored at 0.79 of the benchmark.� |
|
3rd and 10 to 14 |
93 |
66 |
@ 90%, we�d expect 83 min. |
The Steeler packages
functioned at 0.80 of the benchmark. |
|
3rd and 15 or
more |
40 |
26 |
@ 90%, we�d expect 36. |
The Steeler packages functioned
at 0.72 of the benchmark. |
If you add up the 3rd and 10 and 3rd and 15 or more, you get 92 stops against 119 expected.� That�s a rate of 0.72 of the target 90% haul and, more or less, that�s the same as the 3rd and 6 to 9 rate (0.79 of a target 67%).� Out of this, two points emerge:
- The Steeler base was outstanding.� Aside from nearly doubling the expected stop rate in short yardage, we see that only 66 of a total 270 3rd down situations were short yardage types.� That�s under 25%; 204 of 270 series that came to 3rd down resolved in 3rd and 6 or more.
- The Steeler packages stunk; 0.72 to 0.79 of the target rate is a situation demanding a fix.� More simply, the Steeler packages yielded (37) more 1st downs in (204) 3rd down situations than should have been allowed under the target rates.� That�s better than (2) failed stops per game.� Per Week 10 in Review, figure (5) against Atlanta (even with no such failures against the Texans) and there�s your first round bye gone bye-bye.
Contrasting with the facts tabulated above, here is part of Tim Lewis�s response to a fan that had asked what adjustments would be made to the Steelers� 3rd down defense:
�� There will be many�we will look at everything that created the monster that we�ve created� A lot of the third downs we faced this year were third down and one or two.� Generally, you are not going to win very many of those.� When you take and separate a lot of that you will notice that a lot of those were third and one or two.�
Well, that�s not true; I don�t what the league average is but I�ll bet
25% short yardage is better than the norm.�
Regardless, the short yardage crew met their challenge while the package
groups did not.� Had those done so, then
the Steelers� overall 3rd down stop rate would have improved by
13.7% (37 failures over 270 total).�
That improvement would have been sufficient to bring the Steelers� 3rd
down defense from near the bottom of the league to near the top; had the
packages met their coach�s standard, there would have no issue here.�
The failure was in 3rd and 6 or beyond; that is the polar opposite
of Mr. Lewis�s statement.� �Now, I can�t guess why that is so; possibly
Coach hasn�t done the work of analysis; more probably, he has done so but, for
whatever reason, determined to obscure the facts.� If the first case is so, then Mr. Lewis should be terminated
immediately for dereliction of duty; if the more likely second case is so, then
his remarks aren�t worth the read. �I
imagine the latter is true; what we have here is spin, precisely what we might
expect from any talking head.� Indeed,
that�s what we get all the time; a recent, if more malevolent, example arose
when Ari Fleischer, White House press flack, deleted the Korean Conflict in the
course of expounding the virtue of smoking Saddam while simultaneously
performing some diplomatic two-step with the lords of Pyongyang. ��
Mr. Lewis operates within an arena of lesser consequence and that�s as
it should be.� If sport is entertainment
than a movie metaphor may be apt; the Ask the Steelers feature invites us
to travel on some black and gold brick road but, on our arrival, we meet not any
great wizard but just some dope skulking behind a tattered fabric. �
Acknowledgment:
I�d like to express my appreciation to No Limit at the fan-based Steeler site www.burghsportsguys.com.� NL and his compadre Pedro Cadrone compiled the statistics used in the leftward three columns of the table above; those were first published there as part of the article �Breaking Down the 3rd Down Woes.�� This feature remains available on that site; it is certainly worth the read, as are many other articles published there.� ��
My debt to No Limit for his generosity in allowing this use of his work requires emphasis that the rightward portion of the table, and the text following, constitutes my own interpretation of the facts.� Limit and crew deserve all praise for assembling the data; any error in interpretation is my own to bear. �����