Steelers defense problems/ scheme or talent?

I think its the scheme, imo the rest of the NFL has figured out the Steelers zone blitz.

I'll say 75% scheme and 25% talent.

I would have to agree Eff. It seems that many teams have figured out how to stop the Steelers defense.

But it also has to do with talent. Honestly, I think we have been spoiled by the talents of Polamalu, Harrison, Hampton, Keisel, and Smith over the last 10 years. The way this defense has played over that time is incredible.

On long those same lines, Dick LeBeau's famous defense is difficult to learn, but apparently easy to decipher. It's built on pressure and if there is no pressure, then offenses can have a field day on it.

stlrtruck wrote:

I would have to agree Eff. It seems that many teams have figured out how to stop the Steelers defense.

But it also has to do with talent. Honestly, I think we have been spoiled by the talents of Polamalu, Harrison, Hampton, Keisel, and Smith over the last 10 years. The way this defense has played over that time is incredible.

On long those same lines, Dick LeBeau's famous defense is difficult to learn, but apparently easy to decipher. It's built on pressure and if there is no pressure, then offenses can have a field day on it.

Even with the names you posted above a teams like the Patriots* would spread them out make the Steelers take out their LB put in the nickle and dime DBs in and pick it a part.

But that's the scheme the Patriots** play. If you notice when we play them, they typically go from 4 or 5 WRs to using 3, then utilizing a two TE set. Why? To help protect Marsha from the blitz, then they will release the TE and/or RB to help account for the zone coverage, giving Marsha more targets to hit underneath.

Why more teams don't do that amazes me. I didn't get to see yesterday's game until there was less than 2 minutes to play. At that point it looked like they were willing to give up 10 yards at a time on defense, and Palmer took every opportunity underneath. Is that scheme or talent? To your point in the initial post, that's mostly scheme. We didn't play aggressive and our defense look beaten. Was that because Oakland took a page out of Denver's book and played no-huddle?

Regardless, our defense shouldn't have that much of a talent drop-off from first to second string. So if that's the case, then it means that LeBeau has become equally as stubborn as Arians was the last few years and refuses to change his game plan based on what others are doing. The sad part is, is that LeBeau periodically changes things up - i.e. playing the more agressive bump and run style defense against the Patriots** to disrupt their routes - but lately he's spent more time folding his arms and not changing his plan thinking it was going to work, when it clearly isn't in certain games.

stlrtruck wrote:

But that's the scheme the Patriots*** play. If you notice when we play them, they typically go from 4 or 5 WRs to using 3, then utilizing a two TE set. Why? To help protect Marsha from the blitz, then they will release the TE and/or RB to help account for the zone coverage, giving Marsha more targets to hit underneath.

Why more teams don't do that amazes me. I didn't get to see yesterday's game until there was less than 2 minutes to play. At that point it looked like they were willing to give up 10 yards at a time on defense, and Palmer took every opportunity underneath. Is that scheme or talent? To your point in the initial post, that's mostly scheme. We didn't play aggressive and our defense look beaten. Was that because Oakland took a page out of Denver's book and played no-huddle?

Regardless, our defense shouldn't have that much of a talent drop-off from first to second string. So if that's the case, then it means that LeBeau has become equally as stubborn as Arians was the last few years and refuses to change his game plan based on what others are doing. The sad part is, is that LeBeau periodically changes things up - i.e. playing the more agressive bump and run style defense against the Patriots*** to disrupt their routes - but lately he's spent more time folding his arms and not changing his plan thinking it was going to work, when it clearly isn't in certain games.

I didn't see the whole Raiders game but what I did see was the Raiders using a RB to pick up the free rusher.

effyou515 wrote:

stlrtruck wrote:

But that's the scheme the Patriots**** play. If you notice when we play them, they typically go from 4 or 5 WRs to using 3, then utilizing a two TE set. Why? To help protect Marsha from the blitz, then they will release the TE and/or RB to help account for the zone coverage, giving Marsha more targets to hit underneath.

Why more teams don't do that amazes me. I didn't get to see yesterday's game until there was less than 2 minutes to play. At that point it looked like they were willing to give up 10 yards at a time on defense, and Palmer took every opportunity underneath. Is that scheme or talent? To your point in the initial post, that's mostly scheme. We didn't play aggressive and our defense look beaten. Was that because Oakland took a page out of Denver's book and played no-huddle?

Regardless, our defense shouldn't have that much of a talent drop-off from first to second string. So if that's the case, then it means that LeBeau has become equally as stubborn as Arians was the last few years and refuses to change his game plan based on what others are doing. The sad part is, is that LeBeau periodically changes things up - i.e. playing the more agressive bump and run style defense against the Patriots**** to disrupt their routes - but lately he's spent more time folding his arms and not changing his plan thinking it was going to work, when it clearly isn't in certain games.

I didn't see the whole Raiders game but what I did see was the Raiders using a RB to pick up the free rusher.

If that's the case, then I would say that we should have changed from zone coverage to bump coverage, then when we blitz make sure that we have the odd man blitz and tight man-to-man on the hot read, making Palmer's life more difficult.

I think it is a little of both and I hesitate to say 50/50 or 60/40 or whatever.

I think the loss of Farrior and Smith is hurting the D. Harrison and Troy out is hurting the D. We, as fans, are spoiled on defense because throughout the ages, the Steelers have been known and feared for defense, no matter how great or not-so-great our offense was.

I felt last year, when the changing of the guard occured, that the Steelers were going to have some tough times ahead, just like any football team would when so many changes are made. Let's face it, Harrison and Troy are getting up there, too. I think what we are witnessing are some transition/growing pains.

The loss of Farrior and Smith may effect the leadership, but having them on the field would destroy the run and pass defense to a worse extent.

Smith has been injured off and on for a while now, and when he was in he wasn't effective. Farrior is a MAJOR liability in pass coverage, and doesn't help the run game much either.

Leadership won't be a problem was Troy and Harrison return.

I love Troy, a definite future Hall-of-Famer, but I don't think he is the leader that Farrior was.

As for Harrison..........shit........well after all these years, I still haven't quite figured him out