View topic - New Article: Stillers-Jackers Postgame Analysis & Grades

[LenSherwood Profile]

The one thing you can say in LeBeau's defense is that he just doesn't have Defensive backs who have one on one coverage skills at this point. He can't play press coverage to throw other teams off of their routes, because this group he has is too slow. Come up and press and the Packers would be throwing for touchdowns as the Steelers flailed away at their heels as they run by, like Farrior does in coverage.

Mill has been right about Woodley also. Playing next to Aaron Smith makes him better than he naturally is, but on Sunday he was getting blocked by a rookie tackle all night. The kid didn't even need help. The backs were picking up the foolish blitzers, not Woodley. Let's hope the Steelers don't get into a bidding war for him. Let Danny Snyder pay too much for him. Put the money on Ike Taylor's contract.

I hate like fuck when football season ends. Especially like this.....

[mountain65 Profile]

Great analysis Mill. I agree completely that the turnovers, other than the pick 6, should not have hurt us. If the D had any backbone they would have shut GB down on both turnovers and given us the ball back. That is what makes a great D, being able to carry the team when the offense screws up.

[croppyboy Profile]

Child please! You predicted that the Steelers would run for over 100 yards, outgain the Packers in total offense, dominate T.O.P. and still lose? Brilliant as you are Mr. Mill, you give yourself entirely too much credit. First of all, while the defense didn't dominate the game, they did enough to win against an offense that many have struggled to contain. The Steelers offense put up more pts than the high powered pack offense, so to say that the turnovers were not the cause of the loss would be "assaholic." The Steelers also had more total yards than the Pack offense. By the numbers, it would appear that our DC did a better job than their DC. And here are some more numbers that none of Mill's ridiculous rants can render insignificant:

Steelers Defensive Rankings under "Dick the Dullard"

2010: #2
2009:#5
2008: #1
2007: #1
2006: #9
2005: #4
2004: #1

Other teams have to be envious of this right? I would like to challenge Mill to take the time to grade the players and coaches of the teams that the Steelers played in the playoffs, including the Packers. If he accepts this challenge, I hope he would hold the opponents top the same standard as he does the Steelers. Better yet, since all of the opponents played a 3-4 defense, he should pretend that they are the steelers and grade them against their dopplegangers. Good luck and GO STEELERS!

[stillcello Profile]

Child please! You predicted that the Steelers would run for over 100 yards, outgain the Packers in total offense, dominate T.O.P. and still lose? Brilliant as you are Mr. Mill, you give yourself entirely too much credit. First of all, while the defense didn't dominate the game, they did enough to win against an offense that many have struggled to contain. The Steelers offense put up more pts than the high powered pack offense, so to say that the turnovers were not the cause of the loss would be "assaholic." The Steelers also had more total yards than the Pack offense. By the numbers, it would appear that our DC did a better job than their DC. And here are some more numbers that none of Mill's ridiculous rants can render insignificant:

Steelers Defensive Rankings under "Dick the Dullard"

2010: #2
2009:#5
2008: #1
2007: #1
2006: #9
2005: #4
2004: #1

Other teams have to be envious of this right? I would like to challenge Mill to take the time to grade the players and coaches of the teams that the Steelers played in the playoffs, including the Packers. If he accepts this challenge, I hope he would hold the opponents top the same standard as he does the Steelers. Better yet, since all of the opponents played a 3-4 defense, he should pretend that they are the steelers and grade them against their dopplegangers. Good luck and GO STEELERS!

A relative comparison of coaches has been requested many times, but I really don't think some on this site do that.... in their minds or 'on paper'... they seem to judge in absolutes against a standard that is, in my opinion, unrealistic...especially in the salary cap age.

I'm not sure on this, but I'd like to see how other DCs did against teams like the Pack, Saints, or any other high-powered offense this year to see how much they 'padded' their stats just like the Steelers did. I know one rebuttal is that the Steelers have better overall defensive personnel, and in many cases perhaps we do. But I will say this, the Pack have a pretty darn good defense and their DBs....even their backup DBs ... seem to cover a lot better than ours during the super bowl.... and yet, as you say, their defense gave up more points than ours.... even though our QB brought his D+ game and theirs probably played around an A-.... In fairness, the pack did have some crucial drops so that does factor in as well.

But like you say, I'd like to see how other teams fare using the same Mill treatment, even if you took a few points off for other teams' 'inferior personnel'....which I'm not sure is really true when you factor in Farrior, Gay, Woodley, Mcfadds, Clark, and the past 3 games... Troy!...

I'm sorry, but from what I saw during the Super Bowl, the Pack picked up blitzes very well and MdFadden, Gay, and everyone not named Taylor covered like crap.... I mean... McFadden on a few replays I sa was so far off his man... holy crap!!!...

to me... that's the end of the story and no DC 'adjustment' would have made a difference in that game. Arguing that they could have brought more pressure, or more types of pressure is an argument you can make of course.... but there is no way to know if it would have worked any better or worse overall. For every blitz package that we didn't try, you could have had an even quicker TD drive by the pack...

This *all* being said.... I wouldn' mind seeing what Butler can do at DC.... he's a known quantity and would be a low-risk option in that I doubt he would do worse than LeBeau and he might do better..

[croppyboy Profile]

"In fairness, the pack did have some crucial drops so that does factor in as well."

I've heard way too much about these drops all week. The only reason the drops are brought up is because the reality doesn't make the point that the speaker wants to make. Of course Keyshawn Johnson said he was going to go ahead and give Rodgers an extra hundred yards and another td, but he shouldn't count. The fact of the matter is that the passes were not completed and unless you believe in parallel universes I would prefer that people stop saying things like "that does factor in as well" when it absolutely does not, not in the real world. Again, I think the Steelers would like to apply some "ifs" to their game on Sunday too, like "if" Ben doesn't miss Wallace, or "if" mendy doesn't fumble, or "if" Ben doesn't get hit as he threw in the 1st Q, so I don't want to hear anymore about "if" the Packers don't have any drops because it simply isn't reality and you are basically saying "in fantasy land I am making a valid point." I am not aiming this at you stillcello (is that it?), you actually seem to have a great deal of sense and a strong grasp of reality, I am just frustrated with all the talk of the drops.

[IronCity__Man Profile]

and there is no way 820 people, as of 6:07pm - Feb 9th voted on that front page lebeau pool. Who is hitting that button over and over again? I bet one person's handle rhymes with Real Pill.

[LenSherwood Profile]

Stillcello got this right:

I'm sorry, but from what I saw during the Super Bowl, the Pack picked up blitzes very well and MdFadden, Gay, and everyone not named Taylor covered like crap.... I mean... McFadden on a few replays I sa was so far off his man... holy crap!!!...

You can add Ryan Clark to that list and Polamalu. Both failed to read plays quick enough to apply over the top coverage when they were sitting in middle to deep zones. Two touchdowns went by them. Clark down the middle and Troy into the corner.

I guess three touchdowns and a field goal wasn't exactly a killer performance by Rogers and the Packers, but it was the typically frustrating type of game that the more elite qbs and offenses lay on the Steeler defense as they pick it apart. Plus they manage to play ball control offense through their passing games. The only thing that the Packers didn't do following the usual game plan against the Steelers was to throw to tight ends or backs. I guess their tight ends nor backs are reliable receivers. That is one thing that Brady does to the Steelers--hit the tight end over and over. Well I guess with the coverage that the Steelers DB were screwing up on the trip receivers, why not throw down field?

[stillcello Profile]

"In fairness, the pack did have some crucial drops so that does factor in as well."

I've heard way too much about these drops all week. The only reason the drops are brought up is because the reality doesn't make the point that the speaker wants to make. Of course Keyshawn Johnson said he was going to go ahead and give Rodgers an extra hundred yards and another td, but he shouldn't count. The fact of the matter is that the passes were not completed and unless you believe in parallel universes I would prefer that people stop saying things like "that does factor in as well" when it absolutely does not, not in the real world. Again, I think the Steelers would like to apply some "ifs" to their game on Sunday too, like "if" Ben doesn't miss Wallace, or "if" mendy doesn't fumble, or "if" Ben doesn't get hit as he threw in the 1st Q, so I don't want to hear anymore about "if" the Packers don't have any drops because it simply isn't reality and you are basically saying "in fantasy land I am making a valid point." I am not aiming this at you stillcello (is that it?), you actually seem to have a great deal of sense and a strong grasp of reality, I am just frustrated with all the talk of the drops.

I hear ya, however it does factor into how well or poorly I think the defense played becuase on those plays, the defense did not defend well. I think you should judge a defense differently if the opposing team has 3-5 blatent drops vs. say, 3-5 well defended plays. For me, those 'drop' plays were in the 'not well defended' category vs. a cleanly defended play, so yes, I'm not basing my judgement on just results but rather their in-play performance. The difference between your examples and mine is in yours, the GB defense had a lot to do with "Ben getting hit", "Mendy fumbling", etc, whereas most of the Jordy Nelson drops seemed to be unforced errors that the Steeler defense had little to do with. However you are correct in saying that the Steelers had some real "what ifs" also...like that first fumble by the Pack early in the game, or Ben hitting a wide open Wallace later in the game.

[Steel Holiday Profile]

Mill predicted the game right on. He was the only analyst I saw who correctly picked the winner, and the total # of points scored.

[ILLSTILL Profile]

You can't feed that bullshit when everyone was calling Jeff Reed a faggot and cunt when he started sucking after being solid for so many years.

Mill has said several times he doesn't like the pedestal Lebeau is put on, and a lot of people agree. For a guy who's supposed to be a "guru" or whatever, he does get tooled pretty badly sometimes. He doesn't hate lebeau or think he's entirely incompetent at all.