Long time readers here may be familiar with our Week in Review feature.� This work is stat-focused with twin intent, to identify those components that contribute to winning football and to find some means of evaluating those items� relative weight.�

 

Week 17 in Review:

 

	Previous Total	This Week	Year to date	WF	Teams that won this category but lost their game
3rd down conversions	165-69-6	10-6	175-75-6	1.39	Rams, Bengals, Bucs, Cowboys, Jets and Vikings
TOP	163-76-1	13-3	176-79-1	1.38	Cowboys, Vikings and Broncos
Total Yards Offense	155-79-6	14-2	169-81-6	1.34	Cowboys and Vikings
Rushing Attempts	179-48-13	14-1-1	193-49-14	1.56	Vikings
YPA	167-63-10	15-1	182-64-10	1.46	Vikings
>/=+2 Sacks	� 91-26	10-2	101-28	1.57	Vikings and Broncos
* Red Zone (Efficiency)	104-52	� 7-7	111-59	1.30	Rams, Bucs, Cowboys, Jets, Vikings, Niners and Skins
* Red Zone (Trips)	130-30	� 9-3	139-33	1.62	Jags, NYG and Niners
Takeaways (>/=+2)	100-9	� 7-1	107-10	1.83	Niners
Takeaways (+1 only)	47-29	� 5-2	� 52-31	1.25	Texans and Jets

 

• Red zone stats for Weeks 12 and 15 were not available.

 

Note:� The index figure, WF (winning factor) is calculated as # wins/0.5 total games in category, ties are counted as � wins; WF figures range between 1.0 and 2.0.� See the article, 5 Weeks in Review (October 2003), for various caveats concerning the categories posted above.

 

Coulda shoulda, teams that found a way to lose:

 

• The Cowboys were (-3), as were the NYG; the Bucs were (-4).

 

• The Steelers were (-3) as well but unlike those teams noted above, lost in all other aspects too.

 

• The Jets allowed 10.2 YPA.

 

• The Broncos allowed 7.7 YPC.

 

• San Diego had only 2.4 YPA; however, that was better than the Raiders, whose QB (Rick Mirer and Tee Martin) accomplished 0.0 YPA.

 

• The Vikings beat the Cards in every phase but lost on a last second TD.� That knocked Minnesota out of the playoffs; the Vikes started 6-0 but then dropped 7 of 10 including losses to all (4) teams that finished 4-12.� That is correct; (4) teams finished 4-12 this year (SD, Oakland, Arizona and NYG) and, somehow, the Vikes lost to all. This from a team that beat 4 playoff squads: KC, Seattle, Denver and Green Bay, at Lambeau.

 

• The Rams blew home field for the playoffs as, inexplicably, Mike Martz reverted to the all-pass, and no run attack that zeroed out two-time MVP Kurt Warner earlier this season.� Well, really, earlier last season.� Now, homeboy Mark Bulger is about one big hit from rutabaga.�

 

Steeler Index:�

 

Here is the Steelers� 2003 mark for each of the categories noted above.

 

	W/L	Coulda shoulda: Steelers won stat but lost the game	Beat the house: Steelers lost stat but won the game
3rd down conversions	10-6	Titans, Broncos, Seahawks, Niners, Bengals 2	Browns 2
TOP	� 8-8	Titans, Broncos, Seahawks, Bengals 2	Cards, Browns 2
Total Yards Offense	� 8-8	Chiefs, Titans, Seahawks, Bengals 2	Cards, Chargers (3 yards)
Rushing Attempts	� 7-8-1	Titans, Broncos, Seahawks	Cards (1 rush), Browns 2
YPA	� 7-9	Chiefs, Seahawks	Browns 2
>/=+2 Sacks	� 4-6	Seahawks
* Red Zone (Efficiency)	� 3-8	Rams
* Red Zone (Trips)	� 6-4	Titans, Broncos
Takeaways (>/=+2)	� 3-6	Broncos
Takeaways (+1 only)	� 3-1	Jets

 

1. 3^rd down conversions: Tim Lewis has taken a lot of abuse but in fairness it should be acknowledged that he did manage to fix the 2002 Steelers� most glaring D-side deficiency.� Last year, the PS floundered on 3^rd down situations, especially from 3^rd and 6 and longer.� Overall in 2002, the PS was T-5 in 1^st downs allowed; however, they were 27^th in 3^rd down % against, at 43.6.� They were much better in 2002, allowing conversions at a rate of just 34%, 6^th overall.� Now there were consequences: fewer sacks as the LB played under in C2, fewer takeaways, fewer TFL but, still, credit when that�s due.

 

On the downside, the offense flopped from 343 1^st downs with a 3^rd down rate of 42.2% to 275, 36.1%.� By far, the largest factor was in 3^rd downs converted rushing; in 2002, when the run game was okay, not great, the PS had 119 rushing; this year, 77.� In that latter regard, they were 31^st in the league.

 

2. Total offense: The Steelers had a slight edge in total yards; however, factoring penalty yards too (yards gained-yards penalized = total yards adjusted), it�s easy to see why the PS weren�t in many games.� On that adjusted basis, their W/L yardage mark drops from 8-8 (total yards) to 4-12 (total yards, adjusted).� Adjusted, their sole �coulda shoulda� occurred against the Titans.� Thru Week 14, only the Chargers, NYG, Bucs and Raiders had rung up more penalty yards than the Steelers; you�ll note that all had losing records.� While the PS O-side cleaned up their act in the final two games, the damage was long done.� At the close, the PS was 6^th in (most) yards penalized.

 

3. Put it another way:� the PS finished 22^nd on offense @ 299.5 YPG.� They finished 9^th on defense @ 298.9 YPG.� They were assessed 1005 yards in penalties while their opponents were assessed 709; that�s a 296 yard differential which, depending on how you want to look at it, might wipe out a game�s worth of their own offensive production, or add on a game�s worth to the other side.

 

4. Rushing Attempts, # 4 indicator: The Steelers had an RA advantage (7) times but were just 4-3 in those tilts.� That�s a WF of 1.14; the league average was something around 1.56, which is to say that, if the Steeler run game were even average, then we�d expect at min. 5 wins in those 7, instead of 4.�� Best candidate?� Maybe Denver, where the PS had a huge TOP advantage and, more important, won the +2 takes phase, but still lost the game.� You may remember after that close encounter, Coach Cowher stated (to paraphrase): �at least we didn�t beat ourselves.�� Well I guess, although takes is the #1 indicator and RA #4.�

 

5. Of course we all understand that the 2003 PS run game was far below average.� How bad was it?� Well, consider this: in 2001, the PS rushed for 2774 yards; that was #1 in the league and 1579 yards more than they allowed their opponents. In 2003, they rushed for 1488 yards all season, which is 91 yards fewer than their 2001 differential.� Oh yeah, 248 fewer than their 2003 opponents too.� Going into the season�s 4^th quarter (Oakland, against the then 32 run-d in the league), the PS was 31^st on the ground.� Subsequently, they faced another 32^nd ranked run-D (NYJ) and the very soft Bolts (25^th run-d).� Despite that, the PS finished exactly where they began their so-called stretch run, 31^st in rushing offense.

 

6. YPA, 5^th indicator:� In 2002, the PS was 6^th in this category, at 7.32; Tommy Maddox was 4^th in the league at 7.52.� This year, the Steelers were 15^th at 6.67 and Maddox 21^st at 6.58.� A lot of that was in completion %; in 2002, Maddox accomplished a Steeler all-time best 62.1%; this year, a highly mediocre 57.4%.� That�s not all of it though; in 2002, Maddox averaged 12.12 yards per completion; this year, 11.45.� So, even if he had hit 62%, that YPA still would be down.� In sum, the 2003 PS threw shorter but completed fewer than in 2002.� Not good.

 

Of course, the break point didn�t happen between seasons; it was within this season, specifically after Game 4 against the Titans. The Steelers were 2-2 at that point and, while they couldn�t run the ball at all, it�s for sure that TO were causal in those two defeats.� So, the brain trust turtled down the pass game; here�s the T-Max break out:

 

	Attempts	Comp.	Comp. %	Yards	YPA	TD	INT	Passer rating
First 4	157	101	64.7	1168	7.43	5	6	81.4
Next 12	362	197	54.4	2246	6.20	13	11	72.6

 

The numbers over the first 4 games of 2003 look a lot like those 2002 numbers: YPA and completion % are very good; 292 YPG is not what you want (too high, too many passes) but it is impressive.� Passer rating is down slightly but that�s because TD % is down from +5% in 2002 to 3.2% in the early going of 2003.� Contrary to common perception, INT % was down too (though not much from 2002); of course, there was a cluster of damaging pick returns but, you know, a pick is a pick, the return result is something different.� That wasn�t Coach Cowher�s view though; conflating effect and cause, as he is prone to do, WLC yanked in the reins.� As one consequence, the PS got just a bit less than twice the passing yards in exactly three times more games.� They dinked, they dumped and they dropped out of contention.�

 

They reverted to the run, though initially not in any really convincing fashion; over the next 12 games, Jerome Bettis had 18 or more carries in just 6.� (Note: 18 is chosen to eliminate that idiocy in the Jersey swamp).� Of those 6 (Cards, Browns 2, Bengals 2, Raiders, Chargers and Ravens 2), they ran effectively in 3, but hell, at least they tried.� Just for fun, here are Maddox�s passing numbers for those 6, distinguished by 4 plus performances and 2 minus:

 

Committed to the run:

 

	Attempts	Comp.	Comp. %	Yards	YPA	TD	INT	Passer rating
4 good	112	70	62.5	898	8.01	8	2	103.9
2 bad	� 51	23	45.1	181	3.54	1	3	�� 36.5
Total	163	93	57.1	1079	6.62	9	5	��� 82.8

 

Quite obviously, the good games were great; the bad games, wretched.� The sum was better than the overall 2003 mark; that leaves 6 other games unaccounted.� Of those: one strong in SF, one horrendous in Jersey and four, Games 5-8, that could be described as the slough of despond this season when the Steelers neither looked to throw long nor ran with any commitment.� They were 0-4 in those games and, IMO, that�s all on an acute leadership muddle.

 

7. +2 Sacks, #3 indicator:� The 2003 Steelers lost the pressure battle, at least as that�s measured by sacks.� Around the league, 129 of 256 games showed a +2, one way or the other.� The Steelers were involved in (10); of those, they were down 2 or more 6 times, losing all 6 games.� Foremost of course, Denver and Bengals 2, which otherwise were winnable tilts.� On the other side, they were 3-1 in games when they had a +2; that�s a WF of 1.5, pretty close to the league average.� The Seattle game was the loser; check the table above and you�ll see that the PS won 6 stat indicators that week; however, had the Seahawk receivers gathered in a couple certain TD tosses, that stat anomaly would have evaporated.� There, pressure advantage or no, the PS did get beat on merit.

 

In sum: O-line deficiencies factored heavily here.� The league average for +2 sack games is right about 50%; however, the PS was on the downside 37.5% overall.� In their last two losses they gave 6 and 5 sacks; then there�s 7 in Denver.� This unit permitted 42 sacks on the season or 2.625 per game; that�s not acceptable.

 

8. RZ efficiency: On offense, the PS was bad front to back this year; in fact, if you check the game logs over the past couple seasons, you�ll see they�ve been bad since Indy 2002, when Jeff Hartings got hurt.� Certainly, one aspect of RZ offense is pushing the pile and, in general, the PS did that poorly in 2003.� Of course, sets do factor; the Mularkey men often featured a full complement of TE (well, 3 of 4 anyway).� Despite that, on the season all 4 TE accomplished 2 RZ TD receptions.

 

On the other side of the ball, the PS started poorly but did come on.� In fairness, a lot of that bad beginning had to do with field position generated off one kind of return or the other.� Coach Lewis deserves some credit for righting this ship but still, you�ve got to wonder about some of those RZ calls.� Say, the Rams game where Arlen Harris ran the same play 3 times to score 3 times; or Bengals 2 where the Steelers played C2, though deep in their own end, granting the middle seam to TE Matt Schobel.� A lot of NFL teams play Cover 4 in that situation but you know, so it goes.

 

9. RZ Trips, #2 indicator:� League-wide, the WF was 1.62.� The Steelers won 4 of 6 games when they led in this category; that�s a WF of 1.33.� So, again, they left one on the table; specifically, they were 1 of 5 against the Titans and 1 of 4 against the Broncos.� Now, there were a lot of ways to win the Denver game so, leaving that consider the rematch with Maximus McNair.� For damn sure, TO were a decisive factor in that game; in what we can only wish was his last press conference, Coach Cowher made reference to that Rolle INT return just before halftime.� True that but consider earlier when the PS had something around a 17/5 bulge in TOP.� The Titan D was gassed; there was a RZ hitch to Ward, he obviously didn�t get the 1^st down, Coach Cowher challenged anyway, the Titan D rested up and then threw back that battered PS O-line.� Not from nothing but IMO part of leadership is sacking up when you F***up.

 

Trips are a secondary effect; the WF differential between RZ trips and RZ efficiency measures the benefit of field position generated by turnovers or returns, as opposed to any considerable total yards advantage.� That differential is considerable; 1.62 trips vs. 1.30 efficiency.� Quite obviously, any team wants to convert all opportunities; however, if, as was true vs. St. Louis, the PS convert 1/1 while the Rams convert 3/5, the outcome is clear.

 

10. +1 in takes is the weakest indicator studied:� League-wide, the WF was 1.25.� The Steelers won 3 of 4 with a bulge here; that�s 1.5, about what you�d expect.� The loser was at the snow bowl in Jersey and, well, we all recall the genius manifest in chucking a chunk of ice 38 times.

 

11. +2 in takes is the killer stat; a WF of 1.83 is equivalent to 14.6 wins in a 16 game season.� This year, the PS was on the wrong side 6 times and lost all 6.� Those games were: @ KC, Tennessee, St. Louis, @ SF, Bengals 2 and @ Baltimore (Ravens 2).� However, that �2 (or worse) was truly causal to their defeat in just 2 games, KC and the Titans.� The Rams beat the PS in nearly every phase, as did SF; specifically, the D-side game plan for St. Louis (apparently, let Holt and Bruce release free) had much more effect than those TO and, in SF, well, it�s fair to say that the D didn�t show that night, and neither did the WR.� The game at Baltimore was a full on cock-up in every O-side aspect.�� The one winnable game was Bengals 2 where Maddox had +300 yards and just (1) INT; however, (6) sacks against plus plenty enough penalties to reduce a TY advantage to an ATY deficit sealed that deal.� 0-6 amounts to a WF of 2.00 (against); 1-5 (positing a win against the Bengals) would have been 1.6.� League-wide, the figure was 1.83, which is about midway.

 

On the other side, the Steelers had a +2 or better take bulge @ Denver, @ Cleveland (Browns2) and against the Bolts.� They were 2-1, which is a WF of 1.33; quite obviously, those PS takes made all the difference in Cleveland but were residual to a general thumping put on the Bolts.� The Denver game was anomalous and, as noted previously, 7 sacks against certainly factored.� In sum, of 9 games when this indicator tallied, it was the true difference-maker in 3, residual to 3 or otherwise offset, mainly by pressure against in 3 (Denver, Bengals 2 and Ravens 2).�

 

This indicator occurred in 117 of 256 games (45%) league-wide but here, 9 of 16 or 56%.� Of those, the PS was on the downside 6 times and that�s not good.� IMO, (2) TO is the <maximum acceptable bad>; at two, you can hope get back to (near) even with one take, which isn�t a lot to ask but, past that, any team is headed for trouble.� Of the 6 games cited above, only once did the PS turn it over just two times, that in Bengals 2.� So, 5 times +2 in 16 games or five times past <acceptable bad>.

 

Summary:� O-line play was causal in the run game flop; that was worth a win (or two, if you toss in the tie).� O-line play was causal in those pressure defeats too, at Denver and Baltimore and at home against the Bengals.� In my Phearless Phorecast last September, I�d suggested that the Steelers� hope to match their standard 10-6 resided with their O-line.� The equation then proposed was (10 wins) minus (number of under performing O-line slots) = # 2003 wins.� Four from ten checks out.� �

 

Appendix:

 

Results observed in the previous season are tabulated below.�

 

	Regular season 2002	Winning Factor (WF)
Total yards rushing	168-67-5	1.40
TOP	176-63-1	1.47
100 yard rushers	84-37	1.39
>/= +2 Takeaways	107-13	1.78
YPA	186-48-6	1.55