Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Dec 20, 2014 at 15:04 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Article on Steelers defense  (Read 926 times)
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5539
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,219


« on: Oct 04, 2013 at 08:11 »

Ain't what it once was.

Basically dovetails with my rant in the Minnesota Gameday thread.  Offense has issues, but the defense is the bigger problem.
Logged

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

Karma: 12196
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,400



« Reply #1 on: Oct 04, 2013 at 08:43 »

Yep.

The front 7 are just not as good against the run as the Steelers of years past. Foote, for being old and slow, was at least a reliable run stuffer. Mac gets some push upfield in the pass rush but isn't the clogger that Snack was. Hood and Heyward aren't the second coming of Aaron Smith, and that's a p***poor return on investment for two R1 picks.

But I think the real problem is that the secondary isn't up to the job in the fast-paced passing game that the NFL now comprises. It doesn't matter if our OLBs or DL are beating their blockers if the QB can get a quick slant off before they arrive. Our best guys in the secondary are Ike, Polamalu and Clark. Those guys are 33, 32, and 33 respectively. Ike is giving too much cushion, Pola has shown flashes of his old self but has gotten caught guessing, and Clark looks like he's dropped off quite a bit. Cortez played well last year but he's been rooooof coming back from injury, and clearly isn't up to speed. Gay's ceiling is what it is. Shamarko is still finding his feet.

Now let's look at the investment in our secondary. Polamalu was a R1 pick. Ike was a R4 pick. Clark was a FA who went undrafted coming out of LSU. Cortez was a R4 pick. Gay was a R5 pick. Shark was a R4 pick. Now, Clark is (was) a better player than his UDFA draft status, but your entire secondary is a bunch of third day draft selections. I think Cortez will rebound, and Shamarko will turn out to be good, but the investment by Colbert and Tomlin in top tier talent is AWOL. If the receivers are open, the QB can get the ball off, and it doesn't much matter what the F7 does.

Not saying Jarvis is a bust, but we had Worilds and Woodley already. We could have taken a guy like Xav Rhodes, who's played pretty well and fits the physical style of CB play we favor. We could have taken Deandre Hopkins, who is the anti-Sanders, and could have been the clutch sort of go-to guy we need to pair with Brown. Sure, Jarvis was a "great value," if you read the draft web sites, but in reality? Not sure.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,869



WWW
« Reply #2 on: Oct 08, 2013 at 07:03 »

Quote
Now let's look at the investment in our secondary. Polamalu was a R1 pick. Ike was a R4 pick. Clark was a FA who went undrafted coming out of LSU. Cortez was a R4 pick. Gay was a R5 pick. Shark was a R4 pick. Now, Clark is (was) a better player than his UDFA draft status, but your entire secondary is a bunch of third day draft selections. I think Cortez will rebound, and Shamarko will turn out to be good, but the investment by Colbert and Tomlin in top tier talent is AWOL. If the receivers are open, the QB can get the ball off, and it doesn't much matter what the F7 does.

There seems to be this nonsensical trend where the Steelers believe that they can go for years without a high draft pick or serious FA signing at one particular position and get away with it (See:  Offensive Line/Defensive Line). Then, we spend picks to fill up that position (See:  OL/DL) and we realize that the picks were not that good (See:  OL/DL). Particularly from an ROI perspective. You end up putting all the chips on the table for a certain position, and if you miss, it's a fiasco (See:  OL/DL). If that's what they're doing at defensive back, then they'd better make a hit with this draft.


Quote
Not saying Jarvis is a bust, but we had Worilds and Woodley already. We could have taken a guy like Xav Rhodes, who's played pretty well and fits the physical style of CB play we favor. We could have taken Deandre Hopkins, who is the anti-Sanders, and could have been the clutch sort of go-to guy we need to pair with Brown. Sure, Jarvis was a "great value," if you read the draft web sites, but in reality? Not sure.


Argued with the bro-in-law, a huge Dawgs fan, on this one. Didn't like it, even when everyone called it a "no brainer". Preferred Hopkins, Patterson, or some offensive lineman that could actually block. Hope he proves me wrong, but pre-draft reports seem to be accurate. Not nearly as fast or strong as he looked on Saturdays. And is he really an upgrade from the two you mentioned? Hope I end up being wrong in the long run.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5539
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,219


« Reply #3 on: Oct 08, 2013 at 08:58 »

To reiterate, the JJ pick was almost ten years to the day from the Alonzo Jackson pick.  So far, the ROI is about the same.

Still say he reminds me of Jason Gildon...the golden years.  At this point, I'd settle for Clark Haggans.
Logged

We suck because our drafts have been THE SUCK.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,869



WWW
« Reply #4 on: Oct 11, 2013 at 07:41 »

At least Gildon and Haggans gave maximum effort and weren't fat or out of shape. Unlike some other OLBs we know.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Pages: [1]   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!