2004 D-side Preview:

 

Given that players, coaches and even GMs in the show have lifespan little longer than the average fruit fly, it�s funny that the NFL has the reputation as a copycat league.� But there it is: everyone looks up at the champ and, this winter, two league-wide developments did reflect the Pats� pre-eminence.�

 

First, at league meetings, the Competition Committee, bowing to the Indy Colts whining with respect to the flogging New England inflicted on their WR in the last AFCC tilt, ordered officials to emphasize the infamous Rule 12 defining pass interference, especially on the D-side:� Here it is:

 

� Beyond the 5-yard zone, if the receiver attempts to evade the defender, the defender cannot chuck him or extend arms to cut off or hook him, causing contact that redirects, restricts or impedes the receiver in any way.��

 

Well, you�ve got to appreciate the Colts� point on this.� They had paid Peyton Manning 15M in salary that season; they were preparing to lay down a 7-year contract worth 98M including a 34.5M signing bonus.� That huge deal actually lowered their sal cap obligation to Manning for 2004 but that�s not the point.� This is: beating down his receivers, the Pats� secondary rendered Manning, the league�s Golden Child, absolutely ineffectual.� You can�t have that; considering that the average fan has actual personal identification with his favorite QB, it follows that player has to be given every chance to succeed.� Hey, media is message; the camera is on the QB all the time, that player fills the screen on every play.� If the great QB today put up the kind of numbers, say, Bobby Layne put up in his prime, then we�d quickly conclude that he�s not so much solid gold as tin-plated and, so must fear the League�s market mavens, might we move on, seeking a more satisfactory return on our adulation��

 

�or maybe, they�re worried that gamers, habituated to those 63-59 shootouts, might get bored with the real deal but, really, that all amounts to the same thing.� Just as the dopes running MLB juiced their ball, pulled in the walls and all, so the NFL is going to hobble their D-side.� Not that this is anything new; for example, just consider these aspects of the rule, as it now stands:

 

• The penalty for D-side interference is that the offense gets the ball at the spot of the foul, except when that occurs in the EZ in which case the offense gets it at the one-yard line.� In contrast, if a receiver commits interference, that�s just 10 yards back from the previous LOS.� Same foul but the penalties are very different.

 

• The field and side judges observe the WR on their respective sides; the back judge is charged to observe the TE.� The former pair line up 20 yards off the LOS; the back judge lines up 25 yards off the LOS.� From there, how can they gauge whether contact occurs (legally) within 180� of the LOS (5 yards) or, say, at 183�?� That�s really not within the realm of human ability.�

 

They will be able to assess flagrant grabs downfield of course but for typical hand-fighting the litmus test will be whether the officials favor the receiver or allow that a DB may be responding to contact initiated by the offensive player.� So, how does that apply to the Steelers, or any D-first squad?

 

• Rule 12 applies as long as the QB is in the pocket.� If he�s flushed, receivers are fair game, anywhere on the field.� More than ever, pressure counts, especially inside pressure.

 

• This suggests that CB may play a quantity of press coverage hassling the receivers inside the free-fire zone, so disrupting route timing, so allowing the rush to get home.� Past 5 though, CB are going to have to disengage clean; however, it is worth noting that, until the ball is in the air, DB can only be penalized for defensive holding (there being no pass with which to infer).� That�s just 5 yards but it is a 1^st down.��

 

• Once the ball is in the air, defenders have an equal right to make a play.� This is implicit in Rule 12 as evident in the phrase: ��if the receiver attempts to evade the defender�� Also, that�s explicitly stated elsewhere in the Rules.� Presumably then, if the receiver isn�t evading, either he�s committing offensive pass interference or he�s blocking for a run.� Anyway, once the pig takes wing, defenders are going to have to get their heads around.� Face guarding won�t get it but there�s nothing in Rule 12 that precludes some serious aggression as any DB makes a play on the ball.

 

• Rule 12 is all about grabbing or extending arms outside the frame.� There�s nothing in there to prevent DB from getting WR up on their hip (the technique favored by old-timers like Albert Lewis, Mike Haynes and Lester Hayes).� However, that�s highly likely to be called, IMO.

 

• The real advantage is with those teams that use TE in their pass games.� TE, generally big guys, aren�t going to be out-muscled by many LB, or safeties.� They are going to gain their routes and they�re going to have a size advantage in those jump ball situations.� Bad news for the PS, a team with no dominant receiving TE especially as, excluding Porter, they don�t have a LB who matches up either.��

 

We�ll get back to that in the unit analysis following.�� It�s apparent though that, as the new emphasis on contact beyond the 5-yard zone favors the offense, effectively elevating any average QB to near great, it�s going to get tougher to defend the pass via coverage.� That leaves pressure but as measured by sack stats anyway, the trend doesn�t favor the D-side at all.� Over the past 5 seasons, sacks numbers have dropped in total; over the past two seasons, those have plunged as a % of all passes called.� The numbers are tabulated below:

 

NFL sack stats, 5 years:

 

	Pass Attempts All NFL	Total Sacks All NFL	Total Pass Plays Called (Sum Col. 2 & 3)	Sack % (Column 4/3)
2003	16,493	1092	17,585	0.062
2002	17,292	1175	18,467	0.064
2001	16,124	1196	17,320	0.069
2000	16,321	1232	17,553	0.070
1999	16,760	1249	18,009	0.069

�

As a percent, the numbers stayed about the same from 1999-2001 but dropped sharply in 2002-2003.� That�s coincident with the problems the Steelers have had stopping the Weis attack, suggesting those were just part of a broader trend.� Well:

 

Steeler sack stats, 5 years:�

 

	Pass Attempts   Vs. Steelers/ NFL Average	Total Sacks   Vs. Steelers/ NFL Average	Total Pass Plays Called (Sum Col. 2 & 3) Vs. Steelers/ NFL Average	Sack % (Column 4/3) Vs. Steelers/ NFL Average	Remarks
2003	485/515	35/34	520/550	0.067/0.062	PS rarely had a lead; teams didn�t have to throw to catch-up.
2002	573/540	50/37	623/577	0.080/0.064	Opponents gave up running the ball, got sacked at 1.25 the league average but still sliced and diced the PS DB.
2001	525/520	55/39	580/559	0.095/0.069	+35 minute TOP provided by PS run game allowed PS defense to dictate.
2000	521/526	39/40	560/566	0.070/0.070	An average pass rush despite just 5.5 sacks from the D-line unit.
1999	463/510	39/40	503/550	0.078/0.069	PS played poorly against the run; opponents didn�t have to throw the ball to move it.

 

While the Steelers� sack totals hovered around the average in 3 of 5 seasons, their sack % was considerably higher in 3 of 5, including 2002, here the season of discontent with the G**d*** Dime Line.� That is, Tim Lewis, though much maligned, did get his guys to generate more than league-average pressure.� Not much more last season but even if that group got to the 2002 number, 0.080, that would have been just 42 sacks, instead of 35.� Probably, that wouldn�t have meant much although at the 2001 rate, 0.095, the 2004 PS would have had 49 sacks, a real difference.�� Still, considering the broad trend around the league, the Lewis Steelers didn�t rush too badly.� Therefore, the answer to Charlie Weis� question of September 2002 (how you gonna rush the passer if your best rushers are in coverage?) has to be: �We rush about as well as can be expected thanks; we�ll try and cover better.�����

 

Or, maybe get the ball some as, after leading the AFC with 36 takeaways in 2002, the PS dropped off to 25 last season; a pitiful haul.� Regardless, while Coach Lebeau is considered to be a blitz-czar par excellence, the numbers above say that the 2004 Steelers can�t greatly improve their sack %, though they may revert to 8% or so.� Rule 12 says it�s not going to be coverage either.� However, takeaways are key and, for sure, the confusion Lebeau�s zone blitz schema sows does create take opportunities.�

 

Coach LeBeau is a 3-4 guy and since Semper Bill took the reins back in 1992, the Steelers have been, unwaveringly, a 3-4 team.� Still, if you believe the hype, then it�s the Pats 3-4 (circa 2003) that so many teams now are seeking to emulate.� Well, I guess but a couple things are worth noting:

 

• Last season, 4 teams played the 3-4 fulltime.� They were: Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Houston and Atlanta.� Wade Phillips was the D-head in Atlanta; the day he got fired, the 3-4 died there.� Phillips quickly resurfaced in San Diego where (rumor has it) the 2004 Bolts are going to run his gap-shooting variant of the 3-4.� IMO then, San Diego is doomed to the same kind of futility that Atlanta experienced over Phillips� tenure there but regardless it�s apparent that the net gain here is zero.� That is, 4 teams last season and 4 teams this.�

 

• The 2003 Patriots played the 3-4 part-time; once they landed Ted Washington, that was their base but, when Washington went down for a term, NE went to the 4-3.�� That wasn�t their preferred set but even with Washington available, the Pats played both, 3-4 and 4-3.� That�s because, as we noted here last February, the Pats had players capable of playing DE in the 4-3, as most pure 3-4 teams do not.� Plus, they have Richard Seymour, a player who can line up at DE in either set, as a 3-tech DT and even at NT.� This season one team, the Oakland Raiders, is going to mimic the Pats� morphing fronts.� Oakland hired Rob Ryan, who was the Pats� D-line coach in 2003; after that, Oakland landed Ted Washington and Bobby Hamilton, 2 of 3 starters on the 2003 Pats� D-line; then Warren Sapp, whom they plan to use in Seymour-fashion, as a 3-4 DE and a 3-tech 4-3 DT.� Second year guy Tyler Brayton will play LOLB and DE respectively.� That�s an intriguing set although it should be acknowledged that, at 6-6, 280#, Brayton does not fit the standard 3-4 OLB model endemic in Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Houston.� He does fit the Willie McGinest mode, though whether he performs to that level remains to be seen.� Anyway, factor in long-time tough guy John Parella and Balco poster boy Chris Cooper and, evidently, the Raiders have dramatically upgraded their front.

 

So, this year six teams will play more 3-4 than not; last year, five.� Not exactly a tsunami sea change-wise; in fact, the 2002 season presented a bigger bump, when the Ravens dumped that paradigmatic jumbo DT tandem (Goose and Sam Adams) which had anchored their Super Bowl winning 4-3 and the Texans, 3-4 from the jump, entered the league.��� Besides, there�s 4-3 and then there�s, well, 4-3; that is, there is plenty of variation within that set, including:

 

• Perfect symmetry: the Carolina Panther mode which is, IMO, ideal.� The Panthers present two 320# DT, plenty of beef to stump the run.� Additionally, as shown in 2003 when Kris Jenkins had 10 sacks and Brentson Buckner 7, these big guys can get upfield.� Outside, Carolina has two full-size DE, Rucker and Peppers, whom like those DT, can play both the run (well, Peppers is developing) and rush the passer. A team with that kind of front can scrimp at LB and even CB, as we saw last season when they reached the SB with a 3^rd round rookie midget paired with a former UDFA outside.� Now, the Minnesota Vikings are trying to approach this model with Chris Hovan and Kevin Williams inside, flanked by Kenny Mixon and rookie Kenechi Udeze.� However, Hovan is smaller than the other DT listed here (though about as strong); Mixon is the least of the vet DE and Udeze, while promising, is presently an unknown commodity.

 

• The jumbo DT paradigm: presented first by the Ravens then copied by the 2001 Chi Bears, among others.� A dominating run stopping set; however, the 2001 Steelers showed an effective work-around, passing on those downs when the stuffers were on the field.�� Before McCrary�s knees blew, the Ravens had good balance at DE; those Bears typically featured a 300# DE (Bryan Robinson) opposite a LB set down in passing situations (Rosey Colvin).� In that period, Miami assayed the same set with Daryl Gardner and Tim Bowen inside.� However, Adewale Ogunleye had yet to emerge opposite Jason Taylor; by the time Wale showed, Gardner was gone.� Today, Buffalo runs this show, with Pat Williams and Sam Adams; RDE Aaron Schobel got something done last season but the Bills got little from the LDE spot, either in the base or packages.

 

• All upfield, all the time: Lovie Smith developed this mode in Tampa, imported it to St. Louis and now Chicago.� Tony Dungy has the same type D-line in Indy.� Outside that Tampa genealogy, New Orleans, SF and Seattle show about the same sort of personnel, as, with greater effect, have Jim Johnson�s Philly Eagles.�� Basically, this is a scaled down version of Carolina�s perfection and that�s the problem; as the jumbo mode is susceptible to the pass (when the DT are slow to collapse the pocket), this set can be defeated with a frontal, power run game.�

 

• Wave on wave:� Philly fits here too, although injury attenuated their depth last season.� The Eagles have (5) lightweight DE (255-265#), their top DT (Simon and Walker) are smaller guys too; however, they do have a couple DT stuffers in Grasmanis and Hollis Thomas.� The Titans are another team fitting this mode or were anyway, until both the Freak and Robaire Smith were lost in FA this winter.� Now, we�ll see; it�s worth noting that Tennessee dealt down in the draft, developed 13 picks and used at least 4 to re-stock their D-line. The more successful <all upfield> teams have developed this kind of depth; newcomers try as, aside from those noted here, Chicago drafted Tommy Harris and Tank Williams and then dealt for Adewale Ogunleye.� New Orleans has stockpiled Fr. 7 depth too especially at DE with Darren Howard, Charles Grant and Will Smith.

 

Those models don�t look much like the Steelers� set but a couple others are similar, either in personnel or schema to the Steelers 3-4.� They include:

 

• The UT/NT mode:� Until this season, the NYG ran a 3-tech/1-tech combo with Keith Hamilton on the nose and Corn Griffin under; it�s likely they�ll do so this season too, with Fred Robbins or Norman Hand at NT and, presumably, 2003 R1 pick William Joseph under.� The KC Chiefs have run this system too as did the Vikings, from the days of John Randle up to last season.�

��

• 3 @ 300#:� This set features a big guy at LDE, generally a transplanted DT; it is closest to the Steelers, personnel-wise.� The Vikings began 2003 in that mode, with Kevin Williams outside, but finding they couldn�t play the wide run, they moved Williams in to DT and closed out the season starting a couple smallish DE.� Naturally then, they made Udeze, a full-sided DE, their first draft priority; then they got some fast LB.��� Closer still to the Steelers were the 2002 Denver Broncos who played Trevor Price at LDE with Daryl Gardner at DT and Lionel Dalton on the nose.� Line-wise, the only difference was that Bert Berry lined up on the LOS (as Gildon did not); otherwise, well, both teams prided themselves on their LB corps although, of the Steeler group, only Joey Porter could run with that then-current Bronco trio: John Mobley, Al Wilson and Ian Gold.� Something from John Clayton highlights the similarity between these teams:

 

� One of the more amazing trends in the league is how offensive coordinators are neutralizing good run-stopping teams.� The Broncos, Steelers and Titans live to stop the run�so, what have teams done against the Broncos?� Ignore the run and just throw.� The Raiders did this against the Steelers in Week 2 (and against the Broncos in Week 10)��

 

Short-passing Game Giving Defense Problems

ESPN

29 November 2002

 

Off that, you might think run defense had gone the way of the City Wall but shortly after Clayton filed his piece, Denver�s run-D collapsed and, while both Pittsburgh and Tennessee did get to the 2002 playoffs, the Broncos did not.� Afterwards, Denver shucked both Gardner and Dalton, brought a wave of young DT who, with package rusher Reggie Hayward, last season constellated around those mainstays, Price and Berry. Now two years on, Berry is gone, only Wilson remains from that LB troika but, on the plus side, the Broncos have (finally) acquired a lockdown CB (sacrificing RB Clinton Portis to take on CB Champ Bailey).� Of course, all that was too late to deal with what was then the Oakland juggernaut, as...

 

�on the Raiders rolled until they reached the 2002 Super Bowl, where they were derailed by the Bucs� nickel Cover 2.� Or so it was said then though that Oakland made no attempt to establish their run game had to factor.� Not that they couldn�t run: remember, in 2002 Week 1 before they passed the Steelers� silly, the Raiders had rolled up over 200 ground yards against the Seahawks.� The point is: Oakland could run, Pittsburgh had beaten T-Bay by running the ball but the still the Callahan-Raiders passed (no pun intended).� There�s also the aspect that Barrett Robbins� meds gave out, that Lincoln Kennedy�s effective career finished just short of that season�s close but none of that is replicable.� That nickel Cover 2?� Sure, for some teams anyway although, as we saw here last season, not for the Steelers, as then constituted.� Finally, the point of all this survey:

 

• On average, any defense faces about 1000 plays per 16 game season.� Last year, the average was 1002 to include 452 runs, 516 passes plus 34 sacks (so, 550 passes called against).�

 

• Generally, packages are going to be on for at least 40% of those, say, 400 snaps.� Some teams play more; for example, the Tennessee Titans, in the pass happy AFC South, have played nickel about 60% over the past two seasons. In that case, the pack number may approach 600.�

 

Whatever.� Many teams face fewer snaps (the Titans being one) because they emphasis a clock-chewing ball control type game on the O-side.� Regardless, 400 is a pretty good minimum figure for the packages.� Then, considering that:

 

• There are many variants of the base 4-3.�

 

• Some of those look a lot like 3-4 (down) personnel.

 

• For many teams, the base is on less than 50% of all snaps.

 

�it follows that in� assessing any teams� base personnel, it is important to consider both how that functions in the base as designed and how that may translate into effective packages.� Let�s take a look:

 

4-man package fronts:

 

• Generally, 4-3 teams have a package rusher, usually a DE in the 255-270# range.� In passing situations, they may remove one DT, drop their strongside DE in-board and come with some fresh legs outside.� For example:� last year, the Titans moved Kevin Carter down, bringing Carlos Hall at DE.� Before they lost John Thornton to FA, the Titans had a DT rotation to include Robaire Smith on pass downs, along with one or more fresh DE.� Same thing in Denver with Trevor Price and Reggie Hayward along with Monsanto Pope and, to a lesser extent in KC, with Vonnie Holiday and Trulock.�

 

• Depth is a factor for 3-4 teams too.� For instance, last season the Ravens had (47) sacks, which led the league.� The year before, just (33).� What�s the difference?� Well, rookie Terrell Suggs had 12.5 coming off the bench in 2003; he was a junior at ASU in 2002.� The Pats, who were not a 3-4 team in 2002, tried to accomplish the same depth at OLB in signing Rosey Colvin prior to the 2003 season.� However, Colvin played just 2 games last season, (with 2 sacks) before going on IR.� That left Vrabel and McGinest as (nominal) package DE.� Those two combined for (15) takedowns; not great, but the Pats weren�t a great pressure team.� When Colvin went down, the Pats lost much of their designed depth, but they used what they had to include Richard Seymour, who did line up some at DE in the Pat�s package 4-3.

 

For years, the Steelers� package scheme has been: set the OLB down at DE and move the OKIE DE inside to DT.� That�s a tough go: the OLB have to be capable both of playing in space and rushing; the DE have to be capable both of playing 2-gap in the base and pushing the pocket in packages.� Effective, multi-dimensional players are tough to find so (typically) the PS has had little package depth.� Except as Haggans has contributed outside over the past couple seasons, it�s been all Joey and all Jason, all the time.� Inside, well, Rodney Bailey played some at package DT and did contribute a bit of pressure.� However, Bailey was miserable against the run; this, with the fact that Porter has been the only effective run defender among the OLB, made the Steeler package line (dime 2002, nickel 2003) highly susceptible to ground attack.� So, two questions:

 

• Can the 2004 Steelers bring an effective edge rusher off the bench? If not, both Porter and Haggans may approach 1000 snaps this season.

 

• KVO flashed as an effective rusher last season.� That KVO is the oldest player on the roster suggests it may be best to limit his snaps.� Then, is KVO most valuable in the OKIE at RDE or at package DT?�

 

IMO, the answers are 1) no and 2) packages, suggesting Kirschke might move in to start at OKIE RDE.� That�ll play out but it�s worth noting that these Steelers look to be less predictable than previous, one aspect being that Coach Lebeau has installed a number of packages featuring 3-down linemen.

 

That�s all good; since the Draft Wrap-up of 2002 (if not before), such a scheme has been suggested here.� Of course, that supposed that Porter and Bell would be standing up but an absence of qualified edge rushers has put Porter down and, as for Bell, well, no telling.�� Anyway, here�s a brief survey of some 3-down sets noted over the past couple of seasons:

 

3-man package fronts:

 

• Tampa Bay: Simone Rice at RDE, Anthony McFarland on the nose and Warren Sapp at LDE.

 

• Carolina: Mike Rucker at RDE, Kris Jenkins on the nose and Julius Peppers at LDE.

 

• Philly:� Corey Simon at RDE, Hollis Thomas on the nose and Darwin Walker at LDE.

 

Not a LB among those; in fact, that�s 4 DE and 5 DT.� In contrast, word is Coach Lebeau has:

 

• Joey Porter at RDE, Aaron Smith on the nose and Zo Jackson (Clark Haggans) at LDE.

 

That PS set could be effective against an empty backfield and, certainly, the PS has had problems over the past couple seasons dealing with that.� However, this set looks to be weak against the run, as was demonstrated in Philly, pre-season.� Used judiciously, fine; over-exposed, this configuration is liable to make the Steelers� (dreaded) dime line of 2002 look like the Disco Era Steel Curtain.�

 

Whatever Lebeau does upfront, he�s going to have a juggle an inordinate number of unknown, unproven commodities.� That�s because, over the years, the PS FO has spent few premium draft picks/FA selections upfront.� Leaving the 4-3 set, just compare their projected personnel with two 3-4 groups projected to be top caliber:

 

Putative top 16 (8DL, 8LB): Pats, Ravens and Steelers; by initial draft position.� (*) Denotes FA acquisition.

 

	New England	Baltimore	Pittsburgh
R1	Richard Seymour, D-line Ty Warren, D-line Vince Wilfork, NT * Dana Stubblefield, D-line Willie McGinest, OLB/DE	Ray Lewis, ILB Peter Boulware, OLB Terrell Suggs, OLB	Casey Hampton, NT * James Farrior, ILB
R2	Marquise Hill, DE Ted Johnson, ILB * Roman Phifer, ILB	Anthony Weaver, DE Dwan Edwards, DE	Kendrell Bell, ILB Zo Jackson, OLB
R3	* Keith Traylor, NT Tedy Bruschi, ILB * Mike Vrabel, OLB	* TJ Slaughter, ILB	Joey Porter, OLB
R4-5	Jarvis Green, D-line * Rosey Colvin, OLB Dan Klecko, ILB	Jarrett Johnson, DE Aud. Franklin, NT Edgar Hartwell, ILB Rod Green, OLB	Aaron Smith, DE Clark Haggans, OLB Larry Foote, ILB Nate Adibi, OLB
R6-7	Ethan Kelly, NT Tully Bantu-Cain, OLB	Adalius Thomas, OLB Cornell Brown, OLB	* KVO, DE Brett Keisel, DE Eric Taylor, D-line * Clint Kriewaldt, ILB
UDFA	(0)	Kelly Gregg, NT Marques Douglas, DE M. Kemoeatu, NT Bart Scott, ILB	* Travis Kirschke, D-line Chris Hoke, NT David Upchurch, D-line
Remarks	Of 16, 11 were first day picks including 6/8 D-linemen.� The Pats have spent R1 picks on that unit in 3 of the past 4 years.�	Only 6 of 16 were first day picks; of those, all are at edge positions except Ray Lewis, who is ubiquitous.	Only 5 of 16 were first day picks.� That�s fewer for the continuity-conscious PS than down in Raven-land, where that club is two years from their total burndown of 2002.

 

New England has put a premium on D-linemen, but they�ve also got more (former) 1^st day picks at LB than do the Steelers.� Baltimore has generally discounted D-linemen, although they�ve made two R2 picks there in the past three drafts.� The Ravens have spent premium picks on OLB, presumably the premiere position in the 3-4.� The PS has done neither; in sum, this edition has one 1^st day D-lineman and no R1 pass-rushers.� It could be said that the PS FO has been uniquely able to identify 2^nd day value; however, the presence of Thomas and Hartwell on the Raven roster, even Klecko and Green on the Pats, argues against that.�

 

You get what you pay for and this is what the Steelers have upfront as they enter 2004:

 

• Four D-linemen who have taken a NFL snap.

 

• Two OLB who have taken an NFL snap.

 

• Two LB who have played the inside in the dime.� Of those, one is Porter, one of the OLB cited above.

 

Objectively considered, the D-driven champion Pats are stocked with player who were both well-regarded coming out of college AND have competed successfully in the league.� Past the first six in their Front 7, the Steelers are stocked with players who were lightly regarded coming out and have played little, if at all.� President Rooney suggested that Bill Cowher was extended in large measure due to his ability to develop young players.� Well, he, and Coach Lebeau, will get their chance this season.� Consider:

 

• The battle for #5-6 on the D-line is between two former R7 picks and a pair of UDFA.

 

• The candidates to rotate in as package edge rushers are: OLB Zo Jackson, Nate Adibi and Dedrick Roper along with DE Brett Keisel.� Total experience: no downs at all.� Number of (former) first day selections: one.�

 

Not good: setting Jackson aside, any of those lightly regarded guys might develop but it�s highly unlikely they all will.� The Steelers have no known quality depth at OLB; they could reduce their exposure by featuring, say, a 3-3-5 for the majority of snaps but to do so would require more than their standard allocation of (6) roster slots for the D-line and, certainly, more than their standard (5) active game day.��

 

Additionally, the Steelers are relying on 3 guys to take just about every snap.� They are Porter, Farrior and Aaron Smith.� If Porter goes down, it looks like Zo is his replacement.� If Farrior goes down, Porter will probably be the dime backer so, Zo again.� If Smith goes down, the PS have some hope of covering up with Kirschke and Keisel but if Hampton, who is probably best suited for 40-50 snaps per game anyway, gets hurt, the base will take a heavy hit.��

 

Upfront, the bottom line is this:

 

• Setting depth issues aside, the base front seems to be good to go.� Likely, Haggans will match Gildon, circa 2003, if not 2000; the others are solid, or better.� However, factoring in depth, well, considering both Hampton and KVO as best suited for 45-50 snaps, better someone other than Kirschke emerges.� Foote has shown pre-season in the base but not the packages.� The back-up OLB haven�t shown much at all.�

 

• As for the packages, well, there�s no evidence to suggest the PS can line up and win on the LOS.� For lack of a better model, we might compare their 4-down package front with those in Philly and Tennessee.� Doing so, it�s apparent that the PS �DE� are smaller and the PS �DT� slower.� As noted above, depth is a factor too; it�s certainly not apparent that the PS can adopt the <wave on wave> mode.� Therefore, to get significant production from this area, Coach Lebeau will probably have to resort to some mode of trickeration.�

 

That�s blitzing, and certainly we all anticipate the return of Blitzburgh but except as the young edge rushers develop, the prime pass rushers in the PS packs are likely to be the safeties, Polamalu, Hope and, in a heavy dime, Logan.� Now, as the secondary has been the root of much evil over the past two seasons, that has been covered exhaustively.� To conserve bandwidth, I�m going to close with an outline.

 

• The 2003 Cover 2 nickel was a disaster.� In part, that�s because those safeties, Alex and Logan, lacked the athleticism to give help over the top.� However, Cover 2 conflated the Steelers� personality, or their personnel upfront.� In general, it can be said that those PS did not have the capacity to pressure effectively with 4 rushing.� That is a near absolute requirement in Cover 2; it is not clear that the 2004 PS have gained in this area.�

 

• Generally, blitzing teams are Cover 3 teams, dropping a safety down to cover holes vacated by blitzing LB.� As that set allows 8-in-the-box, it is an effective run defense too.� Certainly in the Blitzburgh years, that was the set of choice.� It�s worth noting that those teams had Woodson and Lake in-board and that this edition can�t match that talent.� Then too, Tim Lewis� Cover 3 was helpless against, say, the Weis attack of 2002.� As to the last point, well, there are varieties (single high, man-out for one) presenting the same 8-in advantages while combatting the absolute sure 7-yard pitch and catch.� To the first point, Rod and Carnell, well, it is what it is; the PS must play whom they�ve got.������

 

Coach Lebeau is the blitz king; IMO then, we�ll see a considerable does of Cover 3, man-out or no, this season.� Integrating that with the more lengthy discussion concerning the front personnel:

 

• Considering the PS D-line personnel are effective 2-gap players, it is apparent that the PS (theoretically) can control the same number of gaps with 3 D-linemen as with two, plus two OLB.� Another way of expressing this is that, paired with 2 DL, the OLB must be that much more gap-conscious; with 3, they may have that much more freedom to create.�

 

• A similar case can be made with respect to the safeties.�� Polamalu and Hope look to be the playmakers as whatever upgrade has been made a safety has yet to be matched at CB.� Both Ike and Coke are on the horizon but neither has arrived as yet. �Off that, it seems clear enough that, for either to create, the PS will nee a 5^th DB lending support out-board.�

 

In short, the 3-3-5 is one set seeming most favorable to this 2004 PS edition.� That might provide:

 

• Three stout shock absorbers upfront.

 

• 3 CB behind, in Cover 3 or some other.� In the best case, we�d describe these players as coverage specialists (analogous to the Front 3 run killers).� However, there�s not a considerable record to support that handle.

 

• That leaves (5) to create, presumably 3LB and 2 safeties.� Of those, these PS must surely depend on Porter, Polamalu and Bell if not Hope and Farrior.

 

• It�s worth noting this set holds Haggans in reserve, either to spell Porter directly, or Farrior indirectly as Porter moves into the middle in packages.� This may prove essential if the young edge rushers don�t develop, if they do, not so much.

 

Hey, Coach Lebeau has over 40 years in the biz and Coach Cowher over 20.� No doubt, they�ll have something not considered here.� That said, as a first approximation, it might be that, as all those other teams (reportedly) head 3-4-ward, the PS are departing.� We�ll find out soon enough.

 

Appendix, items that didn�t fit elsewhere:

 

Over the past few seasons, the PS has had little success dealing with TE.� Tabulated below, those opponents upcoming; teams are bold-faced where TE match-ups may be a decisive factor.� Talented TE are bold-faced where deficiencies elsewhere on those opposing squads figure to attenuate what otherwise would be a similarly decisive factor:�

 

Some opposing TE, 2004

 

Team	# Meetings	TE Personnel	Remarks
Ravens	2	Todd Heap Terry Jones	Heap has been a tough match-up for the PS; Jones is an in-line TE allowing 2 TE looks with Heap flexed
Browns	2	Kellen Winslow	The Browns will probably use Winslow similarly to Heap above.
Bengals	2	Reggie Kelly T. Schobel T. Stewart	This trio caught just 3 TD last season but one beat the Steelers in their 2nd meeting.
Patriots	1	C. Fauria Dan Graham Ben Watson	Includes two R1 picks; when the Pats aren�t selecting D-linemen in that frame, they�re grabbing up TE.
Bills	1	Not much
Fins	1	R. McMichaels	Deep seam threat
Jets	1	Not much	Becht has disappointed
Eagles	1	LJ Smith Chad Lewis	This pair flogged the PS in pre-season
NYG	1	Jeremy Shockey V. Shiacone	If healthy, Shockey could be the best.� Shiacone is a great athlete but a work in progress.� However, in his rook season last year, 2 of 10 grabs were TD.
Cowboys	1	Jason Witten	Came on in rook season last year.
Skins	1	Not much	However, Gibbs does favor the position.
Raiders	1	Doug Jolley Teyo Johnson C. Anderson R. Williams	The Raiders will probably keep 4 and use them all.
Jags	1	T. Brady	Three Jag TE caught 5 TD last season.�

 

As noted previously, the Cowbert PS haven�t spent a lot of top picks on the Front 7.� They�ve spent picks though, in fact, 12 of 36 over the past 5 drafts.�

 

Front 7 cumulative draft haul, as slotted in the Cowbert Administration:

 

	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
R1		Casey Hampton
R2		Kendrell Bell		Zo Jackson
R3	Kendrick Clancy
R4			Larry Foote
R5	Clark Haggans				Nate Adibi
R6	Chris Combs	Rodney Bailey Roger Knight
R7			Brett Keisel		Eric Taylor
First Day	1 of 4	2 of 2	0 of 3	1 of 2	0 of 3
All	3 of 9	4 of 7	2 of 8	1 of 5	2 of 8

 

�

Overall: 12 of 36, from 2002 on, 5/21.� First day: 4/14, from 2002, 1 of 8.� From a depth point of view (here, and in other units), that the PS has had just 10 first day picks over the past 4 seasons is pretty telling.�

 

Takeaways, fast facts:

�

As demonstrated over the past 3 seasons in our Week in Review segment, a (+2) takeaway margin nearly always wins any single game.� However, that�s tough to achieve game after game.� In fact:

 

• Over the past 2 seasons, only (14) teams have achieved a season takeaway margin of (+10), or greater.� That�s 14 of 64, so to speak.

 

• Of those 14, 10 have made the playoffs.� That is, 10 of 24 PO teams have been (+10) or better.�

 

• On the other hand, of 40 teams that finished out of the money; only 4 had a (+10) margin.

 

The magic number for reaching the playoffs seems to be (38) takeaways.� SF had (37) in 2003 but didn�t get in.� (38) rates at 2.375 per game, which gives any team a chance at that +2 for any given game.� However, that�s easier said than done as, over the past two seasons, only (7) teams have achieved (38) or more.� They were: G-Bay, Atlanta, T-Bay and Philly in 2002 and New England, Baltimore and St. Louis in 2003.��

 

To be the champ, the magic number for takeaway margin appears to be (+17).� The 2003 Pats had that, with (41) takes; the 2002 Bucs had that, with (38) takes.� On the downside, the 2002 Pack had that too, with (45) takes, and didn�t get in.� The 2003 Chiefs had that, and more at (+19); (37) takes against just (18) gives.� They didn�t get in either, illustrating that it�s still good to stop the run some.�

 

Full circle:

 

Of those (7) teams that created (38) or more turnovers in the past two seasons, (3) were 3-4 teams.� Those were: the 2002 Falcons and the 2003 Pats and Ravens.� Considering that four teams played the 3-4 in 2002 and five (allowing the PAts as full-timers) in 2003, we can say that 33% of those got to the magic circle.� In contrast, (55) teams have played 4-3 in the same period; of those, just (4) made the nut.� That�s 7% or, in comparison, about 1/5 the 3-4 rate.� Sadly, the PS, with (36) and (25), were not among the numbered.�