The Game Ball Thread: AFCCG vs Steelers

smokin joe wood

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
835
Announce crew praised him, but I thought Ryan had a rough game. Made a few plays, as well, but maybe even those are penalties with a different crew.

Other than that, not really anybody except I guess Mitchell.
I thought Logan Ryan was pretty good. Eric Rowe got roasted by every receiver not named Antonio Brown.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272

"It would be hard for me to express to you exactly how un-fucking-likely that is."

BB maybe, but TB is a long way from the end of his road. Which is incredible and ridiculous, but also fact.

Not enough has been said here about Blount, who avoided negative plays and made me scream like an 8-year-old at the play where he drove a ruck of like 6 defenders about 8 yards to the 1 yard line.

I have nothing else to add except to amplify the praise for KFP. He was the ManilaSoxFan of recent Pats playoff gamethreads, which in light of recent events is about as high a compliment as can be had around here. Except maybe a little drunker.
Outside of the 1 play, Blount wasn't very good. I believe he had 5 carriers that went for zero or negative yards. He had another few with 1-2 yards. Avoiding negative plays should be a given, not a positive, especially for a down hill runner like Blount. It's not like he's dancing in the backfield for a big gain.

I'm a big Blount fan, but he was a non-factor for 90% of this game. Take out that one play, which is obviously great, he had 15 carries for 29 yards.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
The defense playing well overall and the pass rush being fairly poor are not mutually exclusive.
The point is that the passrush wasn't a focus of the gameplan. The plan was to force Roethlisberger to chose between dumpoffs, and making difficult low probability throws. Having the defensive lineman largely play contain allows the linebackers to play a little deeper, and gives the CBs and safeties smaller zones to cover. It also significantly decreases the ability of the other team to run screens - which are a huge part of Pitt's game, and were ineffective yesterday. The defensive line did exactly what they were supposed to do all night, and did a masterful job of it.


This team will never be the Giants, where there are 4 guys who do nothing but pass rush on the line. That's not what BB wants - the variance is way too high in that approach.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
The point is that the passrush wasn't a focus of the gameplan. The plan was to force Roethlisberger to chose between dumpoffs, and making difficult low probability throws. Having the defensive lineman largely play contain allows the linebackers to play a little deeper, and gives the CBs and safeties smaller zones to cover. It also significantly decreases the ability of the other team to run screens - which are a huge part of Pitt's game, and were ineffective yesterday. The defensive line did exactly what they were supposed to do all night, and did a masterful job of it.


This team will never be the Giants, where there are 4 guys who do nothing but pass rush on the line. That's not what BB wants - the variance is way too high in that approach.
I think you're overestimating the influence of keeping contain on the performance of the pass rush. Keeping contain may be part of the game plan but nobody draws up a gameplan intended to get almost no pressure and let the opposing QB sit in the pocket 4-5 seconds just as long as he stays in the pocket. And the idea that the LBs could drop deeper because they didn't have to worry about Ben doesn't hold water given that he had 14 yards rushing total all season.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,884

"It would be hard for me to express to you exactly how un-fucking-likely that is."

BB maybe, but TB is a long way from the end of his road. Which is incredible and ridiculous, but also fact.

Not enough has been said here about Blount, who avoided negative plays and made me scream like an 8-year-old at the play where he drove a ruck of like 6 defenders about 8 yards to the 1 yard line.

I have nothing else to add except to amplify the praise for KFP. He was the ManilaSoxFan of recent Pats playoff gamethreads, which in light of recent events is about as high a compliment as can be had around here. Except maybe a little drunker.
I always enjoy ironic understatement for effect. Bravo.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,884
Outside of the 1 play, Blount wasn't very good. I believe he had 5 carriers that went for zero or negative yards. He had another few with 1-2 yards. Avoiding negative plays should be a given, not a positive, especially for a down hill runner like Blount. It's not like he's dancing in the backfield for a big gain.

I'm a big Blount fan, but he was a non-factor for 90% of this game. Take out that one play, which is obviously great, he had 15 carries for 29 yards.
He also had a nifty (for him) reception. It's always encouraging when there's any indication that him lining up doesn't necessarily mean that it's a run. I can dream.
 

StupendousMan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,910
Blount's carries yesterday: 16 rushes for 47 yards. First, in chronological order

-1 4 0 3 -2 1 -3 18 1 9 2 6 -3 3 6 3

Next, sorted by distance

-3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 6 6 9 18
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I just watched the highlights of the AFCCG
What really stood out to me were two related things that were notable points of difference between the two teams:
  1. YAC. The Pats had a lot, the Steelers had few.
  2. Tackling in the secondary. I don't think I saw Steeler receivers break a single tackle. OTOH, practically every catch by the Pats led to broken tackles and multiple YAC. Edelman even broke a tackle by Timmons.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Outside of the 1 play, Blount wasn't very good. I believe he had 5 carriers that went for zero or negative yards. He had another few with 1-2 yards. Avoiding negative plays should be a given, not a positive, especially for a down hill runner like Blount. It's not like he's dancing in the backfield for a big gain.

I'm a big Blount fan, but he was a non-factor for 90% of this game. Take out that one play, which is obviously great, he had 15 carries for 29 yards.
The running game wasn't good, but I dont know how much of that Id attribute to Blount. He wasnt dancing or not hitting holes as much as getting hit by unblocked defenders nearly immediately. Non Blount backs went 7 carries 11 yards.