PDA

View Full Version : were we lucky?


delhess
10-10-2007, 04:53 AM
i rewatched the first half of sunday's game against the seahawks last night. some things really struck me.

now i know we were missing key players, and that has to be taken into account.

but, looking at sundays game by itself, i think we were lucky in a few ways.

1. seahawks were off their game. i saw a lot of frustrastion from hasselback as he was trying to complete passes. now i know there running game has had a slow start this year, and i think maybe he is feeling pressure from that, and the coverage was good, but he had some slant routes and other short passes dropped right off the hands of recievers near the beginning of that game. when the passes were there they just couldn't seem to hang on (for no reason). they had a hard time getting things going, and it wasn't all because of good d.
2. we struggled as well w/ getting the run game started. until davenport had that nice run, which set up a touchdown end of second qt, we have very little affective running game. it was better then it was against the cards, but it wasn't gonna get the job done the rate we were going most of the first half.
3. the croud really helped us. some people may not think this is much of a factor, but as i watched the game i noticed that during that long struggle at the beginning to establish some offense, hasselback seemed frustrated while ben was cool as a could be. when steelers were on offense, the croud got very quite, while they were very riled when the hawks took the ball. that has to affect how clearly you can think and process plays in your mind.

don't get me wrong, this was a great game. the steelers got on a roll, and just looked unstoppable at times. our defense was awsome. i just wonder, putting these things together if we got a little lucky. a couple of big plays from seattle early could have really changed the game.

83-Steelers-43
10-10-2007, 05:58 AM
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. I respectfully disagree.

Luck would have been this team some how keeping the game close with the injuries we had going into that game, it being the fourth quarter with under a minute left, Seahawks having the ball on our 45 and driving and a bad snap to Hasselbeck, somebody on our team picks up the fumble and takes it to the house. We win.

21-0 is not luck. That's a team overcoming adversity, not letting injuries keep them down and completely dominating a team from start to finish. Our defense put enough pressure on Hasselbeck to make him throw early. That's part of being a good team. Aaron Smith and Keisel were monsters. Ike was on his game. If anything, we should have picked him off three times in that game. Hasselbeck WAS LUCKY. Roethlisberger was on point. The team as a whole showed up and was ready to play. The fans were loud. I was there. But that's part of playing on the road. Every team encounters it. That game wasn't luck in my book. It was domination.

83-Steelers-43
10-10-2007, 06:46 AM
Here we go. I think this article from the Seattle Times pretty much sums it up......

Seahawks flat-out beaten
By Jos? Miguel Romero
Seattle Times staff reporter
Oct. 7, 2007

PITTSBURGH — How good was the Pittsburgh Steelers' defense Sunday?

So good that, even without two starters, it shut out the Seahawks 21-0, marking the first time Seattle has been held scoreless since September 2000.

And how good was the Steelers' offense?

So good that Brian Russell's arms were bruised and scratched from spending the afternoon chasing receivers and running backs all over the field.

The Steelers' offense, even without its starting receivers, dominated the time of possession, keeping the ball out of the Seahawks' hands for all but 19 minutes, 15 seconds, and barely more than five minutes of the second half.

In the end, the Steelers were the better of two 3-1 teams on a hot fall day at Heinz Field, stuffing the Seahawks in the Super Bowl XL rematch.

"Pittsburgh, they had their way with us," Seahawks running back Shaun Alexander said.

Especially in the second half, when the game got away from the Seahawks.

Leading 7-0, the Steelers converted three third-and-long plays and overcame three holding penalties during a 10:17 drive. It ended in a touchdown run by Najeh Davenport, the first of his two in the game, with 4:43 left in the third quarter.

The Seahawks managed just two first downs for the game from that point, and that made for a far too busy day for the defense.

Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger had 88 passing yards at halftime. He finished with 206 and completed all nine of his second-half attempts, often scrambling out of trouble and making connections while on the run. Running back Willie Parker, a Super Bowl hero, had just 17 yards on 10 carries at halftime. He finished with 102 yards on 28 rushes.

"We should have found a way to get off the field on third down," Russell said.

"We didn't get any turnovers, and I thought that was the biggest difference in the game," linebacker Julian Peterson said.

The Seahawks' offense was not a difference and only had one real chance to score. Following Roethlisberger's 13-yard touchdown pass to tight end Heath Miller late in the second quarter, the Seahawks looked to respond.

Starting from their own 17-yard line, they converted a third down with a 30-yard pass from Matt Hasselbeck to Ben Obomanu. Two players later, Hasselbeck hit tight end Marcus Pollard for 22 yards over the middle and was hit late by Pittsburgh's Anthony Smith, putting the ball at the Steelers' 14 after the personal-foul penalty.

After an incomplete pass, the Seahawks had seven seconds left to score. But Hasselbeck was intercepted in the end zone by Ike Taylor when he underthrew Obomanu.

A mistake, yes, but the Seahawks might have cost themselves even more of an opportunity when they did not use a single timeout during the drive. They lost precious seconds after Hasselbeck was sacked on the fourth play of the drive.

"You can't take them with you," Hasselbeck said of not calling a timeout. "Probably have to look at the film there. At the very least, we should have come out of there with three points."

The drive took place without receiver Deion Branch, who sprained his right foot early in the second quarter and did not return. Fullback Mack Strong also exited early with a pinched nerve in the lower neck and linebacker Leroy Hill missed time in the second half because of cramps.

The Steelers swarmed to Alexander, holding him to 25 yards on 11 carries, the former league Most Valuable Player 's lowest rushing total since November 2002 when he had 18 yards against Denver. Pittsburgh took away Hasselbeck's preferred options and forced safety-valve throws for small gains and never gave up anything big out of their base defense.

Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren compared the defeat to one the Seahawks were dealt last season, when the Chicago Bears dumped a previously 3-0 Seattle team 37-6.

"There wasn't much room for error with us today," Holmgren said. "We lost a couple of guys that are key to us.

"For those guys on the team that didn't realize what you have to do to compete against a team like this — a good football team — we learned it today," he said. "And we were able to use that game last year in a positive way."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawks/2003932800_hawk08.html

83-Steelers-43
10-10-2007, 06:48 AM
"There wasn't much room for error with us today," Holmgren said. "We lost a couple of guys that are key to us.

Minus Fat Man Holmgren making excuses (we didn't "have a couple of guys that are key to us" out, right Mike?), they knew they got beat and got beat bad. Leave it up to Holmgren to find an excuse.

delhess
10-10-2007, 07:29 AM
i can't argue with that guys. i should have introduced my point better i guess. no to backpedal, but i was thinking in broader terms when i started this thread.

i felt going into the this game that it would be a pivotal game for the steelers. if you go 4-1 into the bye week , you have a very solid start. 3-2 on the other hand, doesn't look nearly as good because look at who the first 3 wins were against. 2 losses in a row would feel like the start of slide maybe, and we would be hanging our hopes on everyone getting healthy again. i ithought this game would set the tone for the run of divisional games coming up.

i think we were lucky that we caught a team that was not playing their best ball, while we didn't have some key starters. seattle made some mistakes, and were not able to catch a break it seemed early. we were the best team no doubt on sunday, but is seattle really that bad?

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2007, 07:35 AM
"Luck is the residue of design" - Branch Rickey

The Steelers were lucky in the same way the Cardinals were lucky the week before - they both had the luck to have coaches who designed a superior game plan

83-Steelers-43
10-10-2007, 07:40 AM
but is seattle really that bad?

No, I don't think they are that bad, but I do think we are that good. Hence beating them 21-0 while having some key starters out is not "luck". It's having solid depth and the big names you do have starting and are healthy stepping it up a notch.

I think it had more to do with what we were doing right than it did with what Seattle was doing wrong. Granted, Hasselbeck looked off, but I think there was a reason for that. Our coverage and the pressure we were putting on him at times made him look "off". Our coaching staff game planning better than Seattle's had alot to do with it.

Bottomline in my book.......21-0 is not luck.

Lord Stiller
10-10-2007, 07:41 AM
i can't argue with that guys. i should have introduced my point better i guess. no to backpedal, but i was thinking in broader terms when i started this thread.

i felt going into the this game that it would be a pivotal game for the steelers. if you go 4-1 into the bye week , you have a very solid start. 3-2 on the other hand, doesn't look nearly as good because look at who the first 3 wins were against. 2 losses in a row would feel like the start of slide maybe, and we would be hanging our hopes on everyone getting healthy again. i ithought this game would set the tone for the run of divisional games coming up.

i think we were lucky that we caught a team that was not playing their best ball, while we didn't have some key starters. seattle made some mistakes, and were not able to catch a break it seemed early. we were the best team no doubt on sunday, but is seattle really that bad?

No offense but you're not making any sense.

Steelers were clearly the better team. I don't think 'luck' had anything to do with the a$$-kicking we gave the Seahawks and I'm sure most people would agree. 'Luck' is how the Cowboys won on Monday night

delhess
10-10-2007, 07:44 AM
well, i have more thought on this but maybe i'll just look like a jack ass. no offense taken

83-Steelers-43
10-10-2007, 07:48 AM
well, i have more thought on this but maybe i'll just look like a jack ass. no offense taken

I don't think you look like a jackass. I just don't agree with you. That's all. It's your opinion and I respect it, but I just don't buy it.

delhess
10-10-2007, 08:15 AM
you know what, you guys are right!

maybe luck was a poor choice of words. i agree with you atlanta dan.


"Luck is the residue of design" - Branch Rickey

The Steelers were lucky in the same way the Cardinals were lucky the week before - they both had the luck to have coaches who designed a superior game plan

i had the feeling that the seahawks, unfortunately for them, were expecting pressure defense, and when we dropped back and had everyone covered, they looked frustrated. tomlin played to the strenghts of our players on the field, and it was very effective.

Tankus_Maximus
10-10-2007, 08:23 AM
I understand where you're coming from delhess, it's hard to not get caught up in the hype after a big win like that, I think maybe you're trying to stay "grounded" before buying into the hype. What's the old saying? "Don't get too high when it's good, don't get too down when it's bad"?

Totally understandable. Me myself? I think that the Seahawks are the toughest opponent we've played so far, and that our true test lie down the road.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-10-2007, 08:36 AM
you know what, you guys are right!

maybe luck was a poor choice of words. i agree with you atlanta dan.




i had the feeling that the seahawks, unfortunately for them, were expecting pressure defense, and when we dropped back and had everyone covered, they looked frustrated. tomlin played to the strenghts of our players on the field, and it was very effective.

What does that say about Lebeau's confidence in our run defense....when he can play the pass with Alexander in the backfield!!!!

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2007, 09:01 AM
What does that say about Lebeau's confidence in our run defense....when he can play the pass with Alexander in the backfield!!!!

The Seattle media is all over Alexander - during the game Sunday Buck or Aikman said he was reluctant to fall on his injured left wrist (a real problem for a runner carrying the ball with his right arm) and the concern in Seattle is that he has lost a step. That is what you get when you sign a RB to a big bucks contract in his late
20s/early 30s.

I wonder if the Hawks think perhaps they should have tried to sign Hutchison and let Alexander go after 2005?

SteelFist
10-10-2007, 09:25 AM
No offense but you're not making any sense.

Steelers were clearly the better team. I don't think 'luck' had anything to do with the a$$-kicking we gave the Seahawks and I'm sure most people would agree. 'Luck' is how the Cowboys won on Monday night

The Cowboys win was not luck. Their defense won that game. They gave up only 3 pts. Their FG kicker came through at the end TWICE. Not luck to me. Just as our win was not by luck either.

Hasselback had all day to through on many occasions, but had nowhere to go. Credit the secondary for that. They played a great game.

:cheers:

alittlejazzbird
10-10-2007, 10:48 AM
well, i have more thought on this but maybe i'll just look like a jack ass. no offense taken

Hey, we love good debate on this forum - no one looks like a jackass when they take the time to explain their opinion and back it up with ideas. Fire away!

I will respectfully disagree with you. I saw the entire first half and most of the third quarter of that game, and in my opinion, we were not a bit lucky. We were better. We completely and inarguably outplayed Seattle in every facet of the game.

Slightly off this topic, have you noticed how every week after the Steelers win, you hear "what's wrong with [insert opposing team name here]?" Heaven forbid a team could lose just because the Steelers were better. There always has to be some excuse. Can't the Steelers just flat-out outplay their opponent???

For example, I don't think there was anything at all wrong with Seattle, as some in the media have been asking this week...they're a perfectly good team who was completely outplayed by a better team.

I mean, WTF is with that?

FastWillieParker39
10-10-2007, 12:53 PM
.Slightly off this topic, have you noticed how every week after the Steelers win, you hear "what's wrong with [insert opposing team name here]?" Heaven forbid a team could lose just because the Steelers were better. There always has to be some excuse. Can't the Steelers just flat-out outplay their opponent???

For example, I don't think there was anything at all wrong with Seattle, as some in the media have been asking this week...they're a perfectly good team who was completely outplayed by a better team.

I mean, WTF is with that?

I KNOW!!! I don't get it either. Just like the Patriots dominating the Chargers and how everyone said the Patriots are sooooo good. Now we dominate a team thats better than the Chargers (so far this year they are) and theres something wrong with that team all of a sudden? I agree, WTF IS up with that?!

delhess
10-10-2007, 12:58 PM
every week after the Steelers win, you hear "what's wrong with [insert opposing team name here

i really know what you are saying, i guess i did the same thing here. but, if you follow that line of reasoning, wouldn't the cards be an awsome team? sometimes everyone has an off week, or gets outcoached, including the steelers.

ShutDown24
10-10-2007, 01:04 PM
21 - 0. Nothing. We weren't lucky at all. We completely destroyed Seattle in every aspect of the gamer.

oldschool
10-10-2007, 03:08 PM
Luck is when hard work and preparation meet opportunity!

Physical Presence
10-10-2007, 05:10 PM
The Cowboys win was not luck. Their defense won that game. They gave up only 3 pts. Their FG kicker came through at the end TWICE. Not luck to me. Just as our win was not by luck either.

Hasselback had all day to through on many occasions, but had nowhere to go. Credit the secondary for that. They played a great game.

:cheers:

I respectfully disagree. The Buffalo coach flat-out gave them that game. Why in the world would he call a passing play on 3rd and goal with an 8 point lead with 6 minutes to play with a rookie QB.

It's a no-brainer decision. You run the ball and settle for the FG if you don't get the TD. It makes the game an 11 point lead, and thus forces Dallas to push the ball up the field and score quickly. Even if they recover the onside kick like they did, they still need a TD to win, not just a FG.

Secondly, how do you let Dallas' players get out of bounds when you know that's the only way in the world they can stop the clock. They did it twice in a row there, and the coverage wasn't even close. They should have had two or three guys guarding the sideline on each side of the field, but instead, the ball is snapped and you see 3 Buffalo defenders 10 yards off the line of scrimmage in the middle of the field. Total waste of manpower. You give them the middle all they want cause they'll never get another play off.

JUST AN AWFUL JOB OF COACHING AND GAME MANAGEMENT.

Stlrs4Life
10-10-2007, 09:21 PM
No, I don't think they are that bad, but I do think we are that good. Hence beating them 21-0 while having some key starters out is not "luck". It's having solid depth and the big names you do have starting and are healthy stepping it up a notch.

I think it had more to do with what we were doing right than it did with what Seattle was doing wrong. Granted, Hasselbeck looked off, but I think there was a reason for that. Our coverage and the pressure we were putting on him at times made him look "off". Our coaching staff game planning better than Seattle's had alot to do with it.

Bottomline in my book.......21-0 is not luck.



Great post.

SteelFist
10-10-2007, 09:57 PM
I respectfully disagree. The Buffalo coach flat-out gave them that game. Why in the world would he call a passing play on 3rd and goal with an 8 point lead with 6 minutes to play with a rookie QB.

It's a no-brainer decision. You run the ball and settle for the FG if you don't get the TD. It makes the game an 11 point lead, and thus forces Dallas to push the ball up the field and score quickly. Even if they recover the onside kick like they did, they still need a TD to win, not just a FG.

Secondly, how do you let Dallas' players get out of bounds when you know that's the only way in the world they can stop the clock. They did it twice in a row there, and the coverage wasn't even close. They should have had two or three guys guarding the sideline on each side of the field, but instead, the ball is snapped and you see 3 Buffalo defenders 10 yards off the line of scrimmage in the middle of the field. Total waste of manpower. You give them the middle all they want cause they'll never get another play off.

JUST AN AWFUL JOB OF COACHING AND GAME MANAGEMENT.

Actually it was 3rd and 8 at the 11 yard line.

It still has nothing to do with luck. I respect your opinion, but their coaching decisions are part of the makeup of that team. We may not agree with them, but how can you call it luck?

If Dallas had lost the game, it could have been said that they beat themselves with all of the turnovers they had. And they overcame all 6 of them.

SteelDogFan
10-10-2007, 10:34 PM
This doesn't make any sense!!! The Seahawk's passing offense is rated 13 as of today Wednesday, and before they were shut out they were in the top ten and were 3-1 plus leading their division. Their game plan was to get Alexander going then use play-action. When he had 5 yards in 100 carries they tried to pass. By then they had ran their scripted 15 plays and didn't have a point. The whole offense was frustrated including the coaching staff. The Steelers whipped them bad thats all there is. You don't get shut out in the NFL. And if your passing offense is in the top ten when it happened you got whipped and thats it.

They didn't have trouble win the running game, granted Shaun's numbers were a little down. They didn't have trouble with the passing game. Until they got to Pittsburgh!

This may seam like a rant but when the Steelers kick but say they kicked but, come-on this game wasn't even close. The only way you can say the Seahawks had a chance to win is if they scored a point. Not a touched down put a point. They didn't even have the opportunity to kick a 20 yard field goal. Not to mention they were supposed to be fired up because they were going to prove that the Superbowl didn't show the best team due to the refs cheating. This is crazy that game wasn't even close.

What I see is they were lucky, lucky it wasn't even more Ike should of had another INT.

CanadianSteel
10-10-2007, 11:39 PM
Must admit this game got me believing into how good the Steelers can be this year.
Seattle had just thumped a decent 49er team on the road ( Ok 9ers offense is weak but there d is a top 10 for sure)
We just flat out kicked the "hawks" behinds and I could care less what the media says about our team & opponents as long as we keep the wins coming.
I think we did adjust our coverage to more in your face bumps on the receivers vs 10 yards off the ball the way we always previously played. It appears we now have the skill in the secondary to play this way (or maybe just the kahuna's with Tomlin/Lebeau ).
I think Hassleback expected to see same old stuff where his recivers were open initially of the snap due top soft coverage, but I think our gameplan got the better of them along with everyone steppin up for the injuries.

Physical Presence
10-11-2007, 03:58 AM
Actually it was 3rd and 8 at the 11 yard line.

It still has nothing to do with luck. I respect your opinion, but their coaching decisions are part of the makeup of that team. We may not agree with them, but how can you call it luck?

If Dallas had lost the game, it could have been said that they beat themselves with all of the turnovers they had. And they overcame all 6 of them.

Doesn't mattter, 3rd and 8, 3rd and goal, all you care about in that situation is making it a 2 possession game and with a very green QB, who was holding the ball way too long all night, you just don't risk putting the ball in the air. Plain and simple. If you have to settle for the gimmie FG, you do so and say thank you very much.

No doubt that all the turnovers had a lot to do with Buffalo leading, but the fact is they lead from the getgo, and never trailed the entire game until the final buzzer.

Also, recovering an onside kick the way Dallas got it is the definition of pure luck. I don't think I've ever seen one recovered like that before, where the ball is batted even further upfield.

MJ5150
10-11-2007, 02:43 PM
Lucky? Nope. But.......

It sure did help when Branch went out of the game.

It also really helped that Seattle had to travel across country and play what was for them a morning game.

It also helped that Mike Holmgren still doesn't know how to manage the clock.

It definitley helped that the Seahawks gave Shaun Alexander a fatty $60+ million contract so he can coast through the rest of his career making sure he doesn't get hurt.

But overall......NO luck on Sunday. What we saw was an old fashioned butt whippin' by the Steelers on the Seahawks. The kind some of us older ones remember geting from our dads when we talked back or didn't do our chores. :D

I remind my Seahawk loving fans in our office about it everyday this week!!!! Woot!!!

-Mike

fansince'76
10-11-2007, 02:59 PM
Actually it was 3rd and 8 at the 11 yard line.

It still has nothing to do with luck. I respect your opinion, but their coaching decisions are part of the makeup of that team. We may not agree with them, but how can you call it luck?.

Simple - if Dallas had turned the ball over 6 times against a good team, they would have lost and lost BIG. They were lucky that Buffalo isn't a good team.

Preacher
10-11-2007, 03:15 PM
DELHESS....

If I may take the liberty of re-phrasing your question... I think this was what you were looking for....


Was our win a complete result of our dominance, or was it a combined result of our good play, and Seattles inability to connect like they did in the first 3 games they won? Was Seattle also having an off day?

The answer to that question is yes.

I think we were creating ripples that the offense was not able to handle. When they started having troubles with it, the problems started to pile up, creating its own momentum. QB trying harder to make a pass ends up throwing a ball away or into coverage for a pick. Defense trying to hard over-pursues and allows for cut-back lanes. That then creates the opportunity for the Steelers to fully flex their team muscle and put the game away, which they did.

So no, it wasn't what you called luck, or what I called seattle's inability to connect. It was a result of scheming and superior play, which created too much frustration for the Seahawks to overcome.

delhess
10-11-2007, 04:39 PM
DELHESS....

If I may take the liberty of re-phrasing your question... I think this was what you were looking for....


Was our win a complete result of our dominance, or was it a combined result of our good play, and Seattles inability to connect like they did in the first 3 games they won? Was Seattle also having an off day?

The answer to that question is yes.

I think we were creating ripples that the offense was not able to handle. When they started having troubles with it, the problems started to pile up, creating its own momentum. QB trying harder to make a pass ends up throwing a ball away or into coverage for a pick. Defense trying to hard over-pursues and allows for cut-back lanes. That then creates the opportunity for the Steelers to fully flex their team muscle and put the game away, which they did.

So no, it wasn't what you called luck, or what I called seattle's inability to connect. It was a result of scheming and superior play, which created too much frustration for the Seahawks to overcome.


well said preach.

\f you completely read my opening post, you will notice that i rewatched the 1st halft of the game. if you watch the first half, and stop, it is hard to argue that we were dominating at that point. it was a struggle on both sided to get any real offense going. that was the premise that was in my mind when i started this thread.

i think you have said what i didn't. thank you

onthebus36
10-11-2007, 04:52 PM
Some more great quotes on luck:

"The winds and waves are always on the side of the ablest navigators."
-Edward Gibbon

"Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

steelcity58
10-11-2007, 04:58 PM
I saw this game live...had another nice trip up.

The Steelers finally put to rest who the better team is imo.

All the excuses the Seahawks had for losing SBXL...seem to have been obliterated by this game.

It was never even close, even with a slow start offensively by the Steelers.

The Steelers dominated.

End of story.:tt02: