After the fall:

The Steelers entered Indianapolis with a playoff bye riding but by the time the bell tolled midnight Monday those playoffs no longer were a sure thing.  If this season ended then, the PS would be seeded #6, on a basis as slender as their 2-point win in San Diego.   

On the D-side, well, they are what they are: resilient and tenacious but far from the most talented aggregate in the League.  This unit lacks a prime time pass rushing DE, either in the base or in packages.  If you don�t think that�s important, well, roll the TIVO back to Indy.  There are other problems too. 

• The PS ILB are worthless against the pass.  Farrior and Foote have combined for 0 INT and 2 PD.  Foote has contributed nothing. 

• Their best ILB is starting at ROLB.

• Their other OLB are too small to play the position.  Haggans is listed at 243#, Harrison at 242#.  In contrast, San Diego starts two at 265 and 270; NE: 261 and 270; Dallas 250 and 255.  Others, from Houston, Cleveland and SF go: 265, 259, 257, 250, 242 and 235.   
• Their young CBs are misfit to the Steeler system where, at root, Cover 3 follows the 3-4 like dip clings to chip. 

In sum, and as was noted in our pre-game, the Colt O clearly overmatched the PSD base.  Evidently, Coach LeBeau shared that view as, after having yielded a quick strike opening TD, his base defense saw little more time.  Subsequently, the PS packs did play gallantly, limiting Indy to 286 yards in ~ 30:42 TOP.   That�s no surprise: the PSD, taken as a whole, has played well enough to win.  Through Week 12, they are 8^th in yards allowed and T-3 in scoring against. 

The problem was, as it has been, on the O-side.  So this mea culpa: maybe, we got it right projecting the PSD v. Colt O match, but certainly couldn�t have been more wrong in projecting the PSO v. Colt D.  Who knew?  Although the PS run game has been inconsistent, at best, throughout this season, Monday they reached a new low.  For the first time since the bad old days of 2003, the PSO was entirely ineffective running against Cover 2.  For a unit built from the ground up, that is a mortal blow. 

Coach Dungy knew.  His unit opened with 4 down, and stuck with it.  He didn�t even bother to activate his 4^th DT, Josh Williams.  As usual, base-LDE Raheem Brock got some time inside, mainly in packs, but for the most part, the Colts� 3 DT rotation (Simon, Reagor and Tripplett) lined up in 2 tech or 3 and simply flogged the PS IOL.  Sure, the PS OT played poorly in Indy but the PS OG, including Faneca, were even worse.   

PS run game results, 4-4-3 to date:

Notes:

• Houston is considered a �draw� because, while the PS did rush for 135, the Texans yield 158.5 per.  Similarly San Diego is rated a draw because, while the PS rushed for just 102, that is a bit above the Bolts� average yield.

No surprise, the Steelers are 0-4 in those games they�ve averaged 77 YPG; really worse, considering that all Steeler RB averaged 69 YPG in those tilts..  Losing like that is not a Cowher thing; no team wins running it so poorly.  The bottom 3 rushing teams in the League, (AZ at 69.8, GB at 75.5 and NJJ at 80.3) are, combined, 7-26. 

Further: only 3 of 12 teams averaging less than 100 YPG rushing have winning records.  How much difference does coaching make?  Well, Bill Belichick and John Fox head two of those bad-rush-but-still-winning-teams.  Those are two of the best coaches in the game; however, the third guy, Mike Tice, is not among the numbered.   

The Steelers� run heavy persona should make prognostication simple.  If they can run it, they should win; if not, not.  Rush D stats are an indicator:  Jacksonville is 14^th, Baltimore 11^th and Indianapolis 10^th.  The PS got nothing done against those squads.  However, NE, 21^st, crushed their run while the PSO trampled the Titans, who now are 12^th.    

Still, if rough, those ranks are a decent fit.  The PS have run over: GB, 23^rd; Cincinnati 25^th; Cleveland 28^th and, Houston (sort of) 32^nd.  This suggests they�ll do it again v. Cincinnati and Cleveland, and get by Detroit, 26^th.  On the downside, they�ve got little chance against Chicago, 6^th, while Minnesota, 16^th, looks to be a push.  Well, depending on crowd noise, presumably: the 6-5 Vikes are 4-1 in the Metrodome. 

The Steelers run game woes can be traced to three factors:

• The Steelers have two roster spots devoted to one RB:  Bettis has been in 7 games.  Staley has been in 4 games.  The Steelers have played 11 games.  Add it up.  Stretching the truth, Bettis has been a factor in 3 games.  No doubt, Staley has factored in two; possibly, he was the winning edge in both of those, certainly in Green Bay.  Regardless, RB by committee won�t get it if the committee can�t get to quorum. 

• The PS FO gambled on Kendall Simmons, and lost:  The Steelers have had a top-flight run game in 2 of the preceding 4 seasons.  As noted here in August, the constants were: Faneca, Hartings, Smith and Oliver Ross.  Wayne Gandy was with that set in 2001, Key Vincent in 2004.  Last winter, the Steelers were out-bid for Ross but not Vincent; they let him go, presuming Simmons was up to the task.  The basis for that decision was not clear.  After all, Simmons was part of a mediocre run game aggregate in 2002 and a bad one in 2003; those years were bracketed on either side by run game dominance.  Another way of saying it: Simmons was the 3^rd, and (maybe) least, 5^th to the constant quartet noted above.  While correlation does not imply causation, that does compel a second look.  On review: less than mediocre. 

• The Steelers do not have a 2^nd TE:  One might point to Dallas, as a contrasting case.  The Boys� 2^nd leading receiver is TE Jason Witten.  The Steelers� 2^nd leading receiver is TE Heath Miller.  Dallas starts two young OT, 3^rd year man Torrin Tucker and rook Rob Pettiti.  So do the Steelers, now.  Yet, while the Steelers have struggled, Dallas has run well enough to win, and protected Drew Bledsoe too, a QB who makes Tommy Maddox look like Michael Vick.  The difference?  Dan Campbell can block but Jerame Tuman cannot.  If, when the PS run the ball, Miller is blocking, then it�s likely a safety will drop in, with a net gain of zero.  If, when the Steelers throw, and Miller is in pass pro, well, that�s a waste of the #2 receiver here.     

The Steelers have other problems.  Max Starks has made some errors but those are to be expected of a first year starter.  Then too, Starks� problems may be exacerbated with Tuman and Simmons sideboard.  Remember in 2003 Oliver Ross was, maybe, the worst starting RT in football.  In 2004, with Vincent alongside, Ross played acceptably.  

Starks figures to improve but the arc traced by both Faneca and Smith is trending downward.  Hopefully, that�s transitory; if not, well, that portion the Steelers have devoted to this pair, cap-wise, renders any lingering problem on their O-line left all but intractable.  

That the PS ran it poorly in their 4 losses is not hot news.  Nor this: poor performance on first down was contributory in all losses.   As we�ll see, the PSO was as bad by air as by ground.  Certainly, it is possible that playcalling had a part in that.  For instance, the Steelers did not throw a first down pass until into Q2 at Baltimore.  Amazing but true, they followed that losing strategy in Indianapolis too.  That said: R/P balance was far better on 1^st down than on all others. 

In 4 losses (passes include scrambles and sacks; kneeldowns deleted):

• On first down, ran 57 and passed 47.
• On all other downs, ran 36 and passed 107. 

Of course, the Steelers� performance on first down created down & distance figures that compelled pig flinging.   As a result: awful game action but some hilarious numbers.  For example: in Baltimore, the Steelers were, overall, 21/48 run to pass.  They were 15/13 on first down, 6/35 on all others.  Yes, on average, 1 run in 7 2^nd to 4^th down efforts.   

That�s not going to get it.  Fortunately, 1^st down inefficiency has not been a characteristic of this 2005 team.  While the Steeler O has been bad on 3^rd down conversions throughout (presently, they are #30), they generally have been effective on earlier downs. That is why they are 20^th in first downs per game; not good, but better than one would expect off that 3^rd conversion rate.  See:

Ben Roethlisberger, all downs:

• Roethlisberger�s by down split array is unaltered from Week 5: preview Game 4 when this topic was first introduced. 

Roethlisberger, 1^st down comparison per wins and losses:

• In those 2 losses, Roethlisberger�s passer rating is good but the team�s 1^st down success rate is poor.  Success may be defined as a gain of 4 or more yards.  All 8 completions exceeded that; still 8/22 (including sacks) yields a success rate of 36%.  In two losses with Maddox at the helm, the PS had a similar 1^st down success rate: 9/23 or 39%. Of course, there was a difference in QB play; by the numbers, Maddox�s 1^st down passer rating was 67.8.  The prime (rating) difference?  Despite adverse circumstances, Roethlisberger made a couple big plays but Maddox did not. 

 Willie Parker, all downs:

• Parker is remarkably consistent. 

Parker, 1^st down comparison per wins and losses: 

• In those 4 losses, the PS had a 1^st down success rate of 18/47, 38% with Parker running it.  Not good, but not worse than either PS QB in those 4 losing tilts. 

• Factoring out one 24-yard garbage time gain, Parker�s 1^st down numbers drop to: 44, 120 and 2.73.  Those are closer to the case.   

The short form is:

• In their 4 losses, the Steelers were equally ineffective on first down, whether by ground or by air.   

• Consequently, they were grossly unbalanced on all other downs. 

News of the weird:  In Baltimore 2, Tommy Maddox was the Steelers� second leading rusher.  In Indianapolis, Ben Roethlisberger was the Steelers� 2^nd leading rusher.  Until the final series, he was the Steelers� leading rusher.  One raspberry more: the numbers show that, rushing Jerome Bettis on early downs is tantamount to a give-up.  Too bad, but here it is. 

Jerome Bettis, all downs:

• In 4 losses, Bettis has 8 carries on 1^st down.  Those gained 8 yards.  No carry was longer than 2 yards.  That is a success rate of 0.00.

So much for RB by committee.  Air-wise, while the Steelers may have the QB they have little else.  For sure, the FO�s plan to diversify the pass game has failed abysmally.  As a percentage of all PS receptions, Ward�s haul has been constant for several seasons; that remains so.  Miller has stepped up; in fact, Miller has surpassed the #2 tally (%-wise) here over the past couple years, whether by El or Burress.  El�s 2005 haul exceeds the #3 % over the past couple seasons too.  Same as it ever was: that does not describe anything approaching diversity. 

The PS FO modeled their program on the 2004 NE Pats.  Here are the results, to date: 

It is what it is.  The PS FO gambled on Bettis, Staley, Simmons, diversification in the receiver corps and trickeration to generate a pass rush.  To date, none of those bets have paid.  Yet, in League parity, this very average PS aggregate still has a shot at #3 in the AFC sweeps.  If they win Sunday that is; if not, well, they�ll scramble to hold on to #6.