S Jaquan Brisker with the steelers

But we usually weren't so bad at getting off the field.

I had the data in the posts about how the running game was better this year despite getting fewer yards.

It showed that the offense was about the same (I think 1-2% worse) at converting 3rd downs.

But that the D was much worse at getting off the field (IIRC, something close to 7-10% worse at 3rd down conversions).

I think you're right that the D won us a bunch of games by getting a lot of turnovers.

But I think it's also true that the D lost us several games by not being able to get off the field. Which I think was the main reason the offense was so bad (maybe 29th or so IIRC) in total number of plays run.

I can go back to the previous posts to dig out the numbers if you think it will help.

 

You maybe have a point, but the point I will stick to is, all but one game this year out of our 10 wins were because of our D, and the playoff game was ours because of the D , ............If, if the Offense did anything. Hell the offense scored more points for the opponent than they did for us.

 

Defense was bad at getting off the field. And it felt like that was because Echols, Clark, Thornhill, Slay, Duggar, and Ramsey got picked on.

The Steelers have done a really nice job of turning almost all those guys over. And allowing Ramsey to move around (perhaps?) and avoid getting stuck on a coverage he isn't suited for any longer.

Offense was terrible at staying on the field. While adding Pittman and Rico D won't make that worse....I still don't see how it looks much better. Maybe MM has a time machine for Rodgers?

 

I agree that the offense was not close to being up for the task of facing that Texans defense.

Agree that the 2x DTDs in the playoffs were terrible. The first one was backbreaking. The game was probably already over before the 2nd one...was just trying to force something to make the game look more reasonable. I don't really fault them for that one.

As has been the case recently, I don't think either side of the ball did much in the WC game. Although (like many of our recent playoff games), when we look at the points scored against we have to remember that many of those points (14 in this case) were scored because of our offense. So the D only gave up 16 in this one.

And if you're going to be a good team, IMO you have to win games where your D give up fewer than 20 points.

I don't hate the idea of bringing Rodgers back (I'd imagine many do). But I'd rather take a higher risk/reward QB so we have a chance of having a medium-term starter (the guy you roll the dice on this season) or a better pick to try to get a guy next year. But it looks like we're aiming to tread water again this year.

 

I was at least a little surprised that they didn't cut Ramsey. I still won't be surprised if they try to move him (and just eat the roster bonus as part of the cost of moving the big contract).

With all the additions at safety, I think we could afford to let him go. Maybe it means they think he's going to be the nickle CB? IIRC, he was moved out of that role last year because of injuries.

 

I think Ramsey has more use to the 2026 Steelers than the asset the 2027 Steelers would get back. Due to the cap charge and Ramsey's play....I don't think they would get very much.

I know what Tomlin and Austin would have likely done. They would have likely had him play FS in base and then rotate to some sort of roving position in sub-packages.

Interestingly enough....that is what the Packers did with Charles Woodson for the last season he was in GB.

 

You say that in past tense