The opener in
Jacksonville revealed that the Stillers doctrine, 2001, is little different, on
either side of the ball, than that which has guided their efforts in the last
several seasons.�� The amazing thing is
that what passes for strategy on the offensive side is exactly what the D-side
seeks to force on their opponents.
Obviously now,
the Mularkey system seeks to control the clock, mixing power running with a
steady diet of low risk, no reward hitches and curls.�� In pre-season, we saw a couple of very impressive long TD
drives; 17-18 plays, 90 yards, 10 to 11 minutes TOP.� Of course, in pre-season every team plays some kind of match-up
so as to evaluate their personnel.�
Those games are, more or less, dry runs; they are closer to scrimmages
than meaningful games and it a whole lot easier to execute whatever system in
that unchallenging environment than is so in the regular season when defenses
scheme to disrupt the status quo.
In Jacksonville
the Stillers finest drive, 13 plays, 57 yards and 7:10 TOP, resulted in a
FG.� Shit happens; it is very tough to
string together 12-18 successful plays.�
In fact, that observation is the basis of the Cowher/Lewis no-pressure
defense.� We�ve heard it all before;
keep the play in front of you, wait for the offense to make a mistake.� Leaving aside the question of whether the
O-side strategy is correct and the D-side wrong (or vice versa), consider that
they are mutually exclusive.� The O-side
wants long drives with a lot of plays; the D-side plays to limit their
opponents to that scoring option and no other. What the O-side seeks to
establish, the D-side believes is impossible, at least on a consistent winning
basis.�� If one of these doctrines is
viable then the other cannot be; both may be wrong but these cannot both be
correct.
Quite possibly,
Mike Mularkey has no other opportunities.�
The Stillers lack any go-to WR (with game-breaking ability anyway).� Maybe, their QB is unwilling to go
downfield; that has been reported but I can�t honestly say.� I watch the games on TV and am so limited to
that perspective.� I can�t see the whole
field in a box; any guess on what�s going on broadly would be similar to
reporting on the wide world as viewed from inside the Squirrel Hill Tunnel. �Whatever, we�ve seen the offensive results.
We�ve seen what
happens on defense too and it is not all that great.� Last year, the Stillers defense was, at best, marginally playoff
worthy.� Generally, if a defense gives
17 points (or less) it has played winning ball.� In 2000, the Stiller D-side met that number 10/16; all other
things being equal, that�s wildcard territory.�
That 2000 mark was by no means dominating and, for sure, the Stillers
didn�t win any phase in Jaxville.
Consider the
defense there against the pass: overall, Brunell was 15/26/0 for 198 yards and
3 TD.� The Mill�s tape scrub revealed
that the Stillers brought more than (4) rushers only (6) times.� On those plays, Brunell was 1/6/0 for 34
yards and (1) TD.� Pretty good defense,
especially when you consider that the TD came off a broken play as Jimmy Smith
read Washington and took his route up.�
Anyway, when the Stillers rushed (4) or fewer, Brunell torched them for
14/20/0 for 164 yards and (2) TD.� YPA
is the determining figure: overall, Brunell averaged 7.61.� Under a 5-man rush that dropped to 5.67;
against the Stillers preferred fractional pressure scheme (3 or 4 on 5), it
rose to a hefty 8.20.� Obviously, pressure
made a difference but the Stillers tendency to fall back in coverage limited
their chances for big plays on defense.
Big plays were
required there; not only did the O-side fail to mount much but they coughed it
up (4) times.� Turnovers are a factor in
any game; IMO, the Stillers needed something like (3) takeaways to get back
into their opener.� It is mystery, or it
was failure of nerve, that the Stillers remained in their no-pressure
mode.� The Jags were working in a
monsoon; that�s tough for any offense but perfect conditions for the defense to
force the issue.� In the worst case, Jax
hits another big play or two and scores.�
So what?� W/L is the first
tiebreaker and, to reach the playoffs, the Stillers need to get over on the
battered, cap-savaged Jags. Finish 4th in division and there will be
no playoff.� That so, whether they lose
in Florida 21-3 or 35-3 makes no difference.
In the best
case, the Stillers get a couple takeaways and score or shorten the field for
the offense to do so.� I saw that later watching
a little of the Eagles-Rams opener. �Behind
17-3 in the 4th, the Eagles began to exert pressure bringing 5-6 on
nearly down.� In short order, they were
back in it scoring (2) 4th quarter TD to pull even at 17.� True, the Rams drove down and kicked an OT
FG to pull it out but at least Philly made a stand.� We didn�t see that from the Stillers in Jagland and that is a
damn shame.� The bottom line is this:
the Stillers D/O doctrine is schizoid on the face of it and, in their rigid
adherence to that in the opener, the coaching staff demonstrated doom-struck
behavior.� So long as this remains SOP,
the Stillers will stick, at best, somewhere in the middle of the pack.