Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Oct 20, 2014 at 08:18 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Steelers' 2011 MVP  (Read 1299 times)
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8121
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,722



« Reply #20 on: Oct 12, 2011 at 19:32 »

What improvements?  The improvement on that one play in the line's execution?

Fact of the matter is, Mendenhall's problems are mental.  His ball security is an issue, not because he fumbles all that much but because you can actually see guys jawing at him, that he's a fumbler, and I think the dude is thin-skinned.  I feel bad for him tbh; he'll never shake that rap, not in the league and not with the fans.

Three-down talent is hard to come by in the NFL, and it's worth riding until it's dead certain that the guy's problems are incurable. 

FWIW Finny I think Mendenhall is much better as a 25 touch guy than an a 15 touch guy.
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12194
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,317



« Reply #21 on: Oct 13, 2011 at 08:37 »

Improvements in pass pro, certainly.  Huge, if limited (n=1).

And besides that one long rush, there were incremental improvements in run blocking.  It looked like the line was getting off the snap faster, more in synch, and getting some push, rather than being pushed back.  I can understand Mendenhall's insecurities, given the fact that 90% of the time there are defenders in the backfield with him.  Or the rushing lanes aren't merely tight, they're the size of pores. 

With the guys we have now, I still think Mendy is the guy you go to as the back-breaker, and Redman is the meat tenderizer.  Would also like to see Mendy used more in the passing game a la Rice. 
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
jcharding
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: 1221
Offline Offline

Posts: 546



« Reply #22 on: Oct 13, 2011 at 12:34 »

What improvement in running?

Mendenhall averages 3.0 YPC for the year.
Against Tennessee, Redman averaged 3.3 YPC.
Absent the freak play, Dwyer averaged 2.8 YPC.

There was no improvement in running the ball.
Logged

I don't need no stinking avatar!
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5533
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,083


« Reply #23 on: Oct 13, 2011 at 13:28 »

What improvement in running?

Mendenhall averages 3.0 YPC for the year.
Against Tennessee, Redman averaged 3.3 YPC.
Absent the freak play, Dwyer averaged 2.8 YPC.

There was no improvement in running the ball.

I think this improvement is what Finny was getting at.


And Redman did carve out positives where Mendy would have been stifled, IMO.

Statistically, there might not be much of a difference, but if RM was carryin' the rock against the Tits, he's nowhere near as effective.  He'd still be dancing behind the line instead of pushing the pile like Red.
Logged

We suck because our drafts have been THE SUCK.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12194
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,317



« Reply #24 on: Oct 13, 2011 at 14:13 »

There are several ways to argue this, but only once the OL gels and we see how the running game develops over the season can we tell what the Max Starks Effect has amounted to.  I don't see how you just throw out a 76 yard run even if it is a statistical outlier: it's not like the Counter 34 Pike is some exotic trick play, we run that fucker all the time, and then all of a sudden it works to perfection?  You can say it was better OL play, better speed to the hole by the back, or a complete defensive meltdown, but I haven't seen a canyon-sized lane like that from this OL in a long, long time. 

But there are plenty of stats we can dig into WRT the running game.  Low attempts came week 1 @ Balt. (16), obviously fell behind early and abandoned the run.  High came week 2 v. Seattle (35), opposite dynamic with the blowout.  League YPG this season is 111.2, and we've gone over that 3 of 5 games:  v. Seattle (123), @ Houston (118), and v. Tenn. (174).  Average attempts in those games was 30.3.  In the games where YPG was below league average, we ran an average 22.0 times for 66.5 YPG.

@ Balt.:  Steelers ran for +1.1 over Baltimore's seasonal average YPC against all other opponents (+36.3%).  Contextually not hard to explain, since the Ravens were in pass defense and the total rush yardage was 66 (57 from RBs).  Baltimore is 3rd in rush defense YPC.
Seattle: +0.49 over average YPC (+16.2%).   This was a nice effort, as Seattle's rush defense YPC is ranked 2nd.
@ Indy.: -2.03 under average YPC (-45.9%).  28 carries, to no effect.  Abysmal.
@ Hou.: +0.69 over average YPC (+14.8%).  Slightly better than average against the 24th ranked in terms of rush defense YPC. 
Tenn.: +2.99 over average YPC (+92.9%), or +0.41 (+14.9%) sans the Dwyer run.  Tennessee is 10th in rush defense YPC, so going the same-ish percentage over average YPC as the 24th best team is an improvement; counting the big run, +92.(% is a statement.

Overall, we're doing better against team rushing defenses than their average opponents, exceppting the Colts debacle.  I'd love to see how much of the yardage breakdown came as yards for loss in each of those games:  I suspect the yards for loss were way down against the Titans, credit both Redman and the line. 
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8121
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,722



« Reply #25 on: Oct 13, 2011 at 18:44 »

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7098364/pittsburgh-steelers-rashard-mendenhall-hamstring-start-sunday-vs-jacksonville-jaguars

All will be revealed Sunday.  Unless the line regresses with Krusty back at RT.  Then nothing will be revealed.
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!