PDA

View Full Version : Will Sepulveda actually hurt our defense?


steelpit
08-14-2009, 03:18 PM
Granted our punting was attrocious last year but it did keep the field relatively short for our defense.

Now with a longer field to work with, our defense might not be as potent because they will be on the field longer and thus tire out more easily. It will come down to our back-ups to play well to win many games this year.

Don't get me wrong, I am thankful Sepulvida is back but he does outkick our coverage and will give the oppents an opportunity to run one back. Our punt coverage last year was awesome becuse the punting was so bad.

Discuss...

scsteeler
08-14-2009, 03:25 PM
Granted our punting was attrocious last year but it did keep the field relatively short for our defense.

Now with a longer field to work with, our defense might not be as potent because they will be on the field longer and thus tire out more easily. It will come down to our back-ups to play well to win many games this year.

Don't get me wrong, I am thankful Sepulvida is back but he does outkick our coverage and will give the oppents an opportunity to run one back. Our punt coverage last year was awesome becuse the punting was so bad.

Discuss...


Is this post a joke or a stab at sarcasm. I do hope you are not serious asking this question. :banging:

ANDYMISIU
08-14-2009, 03:31 PM
That makes no sense at all bro. Your saying that making the field shorter so the opposing offense scores quicker helps our defense stay fresh?

I'm not trying to jump on you, but this is BASIC football. Field position wins football games. The longer the other team has to go in order to score the better.

The object of the defense is to stop the offense period. If there successful on a long field, our offense will have a shorter distance to travel to the endzone. If the defense is successful on a shorter field, our offense will have further to travel to the endzone.

If the defense is unsuccessful, the opposing offense will score. However, if Sepulveda gives us a nice long field to work with. We will have more opportunities to hold the opposing offense from scoring, because they will need to convert more first downs. That also gives us more opportunity for turnovers.

So, long story short. Having Sepulveda back is the best thing that has happened to the Steelers this off season.

I can't believe I wrote that much in response to this question :)

steelpit
08-14-2009, 03:32 PM
Even James Farrior hinted at this after the game.

ANDYMISIU
08-14-2009, 03:34 PM
Even James Farrior hinted at this after the game.

YOUR JUST FLAT OUT WRONG AND THIS POST IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I'VE READ TODAY. NOW I'M JUMPING ON YOU. :banging:

steelpit
08-14-2009, 03:36 PM
See that's the thing about "I told ya so's" You put something out there that most people don't agree with and if it never comes to fruition it is forgotten about. However, you can bring it up again if it does come to pass and look like Nostradamus.

goLERS
08-14-2009, 03:37 PM
:rofl: no

Fire Haley
08-14-2009, 03:38 PM
NO

You are on crack

The Definiti0n
08-14-2009, 03:38 PM
Even James Farrior hinted at this after the game.

what did he say?

OX1947
08-14-2009, 03:41 PM
This has to be one of the most moronic posts I have ever read.

Psyychoward86
08-14-2009, 03:41 PM
Fail post.

ANDYMISIU
08-14-2009, 03:43 PM
See that's the thing about "I told ya so's" You put something out there that most people don't agree with and if it never comes to fruition it is forgotten about. However, you can bring it up again if it does come to pass and look like Nostradamus.

But what your not understanding is the simple fact that your thought goes against football philosophy, it's just plain ignorance. You tell me what's better for an opposing offense.

To have the ball 1st and 10 on there own 30yrd line? or to have the ball on our 30yrd line?

You see, Sepulveda kicks the crap out of the ball and makes the opposing offense have to travel 70yrds for a TD and convert 6 first downs to get there. Or Berger shanks the ball and the opposing offense only has 30yrds for a TD and only needs to convert 2 first downs to get there. Not to mention they are already in FG range.

It's just complete idiocy my man, udder complete idiocy. I would delete this thread if I were you cause it really makes you look stupid. I'm just trying to be nice here.

Psyychoward86
08-14-2009, 03:47 PM
But what your not understanding is the simple fact that your thought goes against football philosophy, it's just plain ignorance. You tell me what's better for an opposing offense.

To have the ball 1st and 10 on there own 30yrd line? or to have the ball on our 30yrd line?

You see, Sepulveda kicks the crap out of the ball and makes the opposing offense have to travel 70yrds for a TD and convert 6 first downs to get there. Or Berger shanks the ball and the opposing offense only has 30yrds for a TD and only needs to convert 2 first downs to get there. Not to mention they are already in FG range.

It's just complete idiocy my man, udder complete idiocy. I would delete this thread if I were you cause it really makes you look stupid. I'm just tying to be nice here.

Lol chill. But yeah, what he said :flap:

Hammer67
08-14-2009, 03:49 PM
Andy is correct.

Any football coach or player will tell you that field position is one of the most important factors in being successful. The purpose of special teams is to put the other team in the worst possible offensive position on the field (i.e. make them have to go farther to score).

If the D scores a 3 and out on the Offense's own 20, that is 100% better then if they score a 3 and out on their own, say, 40.

There are too many football guru's here, my friend, so don't expect this sentiment to gain any support.

Slanted August
08-14-2009, 03:54 PM
I may be off on this view but I always felt if we had the opponent inside the 20 that Dick Lebeau would be even more aggresive from the front line to even the corners playing tighter. It seemed that this scenario always played out to our strength and our ability to hold them down there.

Speaking of having to defend 90 yards vs 40, etc I used to wonder what if we became pass happy again like the Tommy Gun or had a quick strike passing attack like the Saints where worst case you could have a quick three and out with the clock stopping on incompletions or best case having three minute drives where you score but the D is quickly back on the field.

With our current D (even if the Offense quickly turns the ball in a possesion a couple times a game ) I beleive we can absorb the damage most of the time.

SteelTalons
08-14-2009, 04:14 PM
Granted our punting was attrocious last year but it did keep the field relatively short for our defense.

Now with a longer field to work with, our defense might not be as potent because they will be on the field longer and thus tire out more easily. It will come down to our back-ups to play well to win many games this year.

Don't get me wrong, I am thankful Sepulvida is back but he does outkick our coverage and will give the oppents an opportunity to run one back. Our punt coverage last year was awesome becuse the punting was so bad.

Discuss...

This isn't an issue... While that ball is hanging up in the air on its 50yard journey. Everyones gonna be hauling ass to the returner. So not a problem. If your thinking the ball is gonna arrive before the players do to bring the PR down.

Plus him launching it down field like he does is gonna give opposing teams piss poor field position. Compared to Berger's 30yard shanks were teams kept starting their drives at midfield when we get stalled out backed up to our goal line.

This is really a none issue. Watching DSep punt compared to Berger is like watching an avalanche vs a flying snowball. Having him back is really gonna be a HUGE thing for us. Field position is the game breaker more often than not, so having Sepulveda back is nothing short of a total plus for the defense. And also the offense, because if we stall them out at lets say their 20, and they punt that starts us just shy of midfield more often than not, or if the defense intercepts them down on their then its conveniently close for a TD drive or a FG at the very least, if they dont run it back for the TD themselves.

The less ground we have to cover to the endzone and the more they have to cover, the better. :drink:

scsteeler
08-14-2009, 04:15 PM
steelpit you have elevated ignorance to a new level!!!!!!

Man it has been a hectic day at work and I needed something to give me a laugh and this post did it. OK I will go with this, where did you get this theory from!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

ANDYMISIU
08-14-2009, 04:16 PM
I may be off on this view but I always felt if we had the opponent inside the 20 that Dick Lebeau would be even more aggresive from the front line to even the corners playing tighter. It seemed that this scenario always played out to our strength and our ability to hold them down there.

Speaking of having to defend 90 yards vs 40, etc I used to wonder what if we became pass happy again like the Tommy Gun or had a quick strike passing attack like the Saints where worst case you could have a quick three and out with the clock stopping on incompletions or best case having three minute drives where you score but the D is quickly back on the field.

With our current D (even if the Offense quickly turns the ball in a possesion a couple times a game ) I beleive we can absorb the damage most of the time.

You are correct in saying that it's much harder to pass inside of the 20 yard line. However, as you saw last night. Against high powered offenses it's the "bend but don't break" approach. Keep everything in front of you and stay away from the big play.

SteelTalons
08-14-2009, 04:17 PM
steelpit you have elevated ignorance to a new level!!!!!!

Man it has been a hectic day at work and I needed something to give me a laugh and this post did it. OK I will go with this, where did you get this theory from!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Disney Channel II? :noidea:

PisnNapalm
08-14-2009, 04:19 PM
Granted our punting was attrocious last year but it did keep the field relatively short for our defense.

Now with a longer field to work with, our defense might not be as potent because they will be on the field longer and thus tire out more easily. It will come down to our back-ups to play well to win many games this year.

Don't get me wrong, I am thankful Sepulvida is back but he does outkick our coverage and will give the oppents an opportunity to run one back. Our punt coverage last year was awesome becuse the punting was so bad.

Discuss...


http://www.scienceblogs.de/frischer-wind/picard-facepalm.jpg

SteelLloyd95
08-14-2009, 04:25 PM
At has been noted, the first part of this post sounds like a sarcastic joke. The second part is plausible about return coverage. It is interesting that last year's punt coverage was improved, but could it have been because Berger's 30 yard punts limited the amount of ground our coverage units had to cover? Very possible. I hope that I am wrong and Tomlin really has corrected what had been 15 years of crappy Cowher special teams.

scsteeler
08-14-2009, 04:31 PM
At has been noted, the first part of this post sounds like a sarcastic joke. The second part is plausible about return coverage. It is interesting that last year's punt coverage was improved, but could it have been because Berger's 30 yard punts limited the amount of ground our coverage units had to cover? Very possible. I hope that I am wrong and Tomlin really has corrected what had been 15 years of crappy Cowher special teams.

Had the punt coverage not been improved other teams would have scored more on those horrible punts made by berger.

Indo
08-14-2009, 04:36 PM
http://www.scienceblogs.de/frischer-wind/picard-facepalm.jpg

:rofl:

Preacher
08-14-2009, 05:06 PM
Sorry PNP... but that just isn't enough...

http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs45/f/2009/108/5/8/Double_Face_Palm_by_RIOTmon.jpg

simonsfs30
08-14-2009, 06:06 PM
an i was scared to post something stupid , now i feel better thanks

stillers4me
08-14-2009, 06:09 PM
an i was scared to post something stupid , now i feel better thanks

:chuckle:

I guess we were much better off with Berger and Ernster. :sofunny:

Hapa
08-14-2009, 06:34 PM
Ask any defense if they'd rather have a longer, or shorter field, I guarantee they'll say longer.

alittlejazzbird
08-14-2009, 07:25 PM
Even James Farrior hinted at this after the game.

He was kidding:

James Farrior joked after the game that Sepulveda was going to hurt the defense because he was going to give opposing offenses more field to work with.

http://nflfromthesidelines.blogspot.com/2009/08/post-arizona-thoughts.html

Daniel is our very own "Robo-Punter," and I mean that as a huge compliment. If he stays healthy, what a formidable field-position weapon he will be.

Texasteel
08-14-2009, 08:03 PM
I really can't believe this thread has 30 post. Thats including mine.:doh:

RoethlisBURGHer
08-14-2009, 08:10 PM
If I were a defensive player, I would much rather have the opposing offense have to drive the length of the field than just 40 yards.

wootawnee
08-14-2009, 08:31 PM
You can take your stats and Jam em .........How many years were the Steel Curtain the # 1 defense in the league?......Maybe just 76.........They still were the best unit in the league........Stats do not win championships.......Teamwork does......Fantasy football corrupts the veiws of what makes a great team.....It is all about the W's......

GBMelBlount
08-14-2009, 08:36 PM
As long as he's not kicking line drives we'll be fine.

43Hitman
08-14-2009, 08:39 PM
Granted our punting was attrocious last year but it did keep the field relatively short for our defense.

Now with a longer field to work with, our defense might not be as potent because they will be on the field longer and thus tire out more easily. It will come down to our back-ups to play well to win many games this year.

Don't get me wrong, I am thankful Sepulvida is back but he does outkick our coverage and will give the oppents an opportunity to run one back. Our punt coverage last year was awesome becuse the punting was so bad.

Discuss...

wat:hunch:

steelpit
08-14-2009, 10:00 PM
I've had such a laugh viewing all the posts. It really has made my Friday.

I knew I could count on the Steeler Nation to cheer me up!

But really it's the same argument as with the O-line. They sucked but we won a SuperBowl, why change anything- including the punter.

Thanks guys.

Nadroj 20
08-14-2009, 10:17 PM
:rofl: really?? :toofunny:

SteelTalons
08-14-2009, 10:52 PM
I've had such a laugh viewing all the posts. It really has made my Friday.

I knew I could count on the Steeler Nation to cheer me up!

But really it's the same argument as with the O-line. They sucked but we won a SuperBowl, why change anything- including the punter.

Thanks guys.

We picked you up around late January didn't we? Obviously you joined the board recently, but you're really starting to make me want to post Picard facepalms all over the place...

Why change the O-line? So we can run the ball and protect Ben maybe? Don't mean we have to go Smash Mouth about it but it at least adds a dimension we were lacking at last year to say the least.

As far as Sepulveda goes... FIELD POSITION, FIELD POSITION, and once again FIELD POSITION! 50yard bombs versus 30yard shanks is a big improvement to say the least.

steelpit
08-15-2009, 12:06 AM
It's funny how everyone attacks the premise (and me of course) saying I'm a dummy.

Here's the point that everyone has missed. The front office and coaches decided that the suckiest line in the history of the Superbowl was important enough to bring back in full. So if we won a Superbowl with arguably the worst punter in Superbowl history why change anything?

Why fix anything when we won a Superbowl? We supposedly have an easier schedule so why do we need an outstanding punter?

What is funny is all the people responding to this are probably the same people who were out of their minds wondering why we traded up and took a punter in the 4th round! Now they see how important Sepulvida is and are just marveling at his "Booming" punts and ability to change the field position.

Steelboy84
08-15-2009, 01:40 AM
Sepulveda is going to be another weapon for us. We'll pin people even deeper in their own territory this season.

Riddle_Of_Steel
08-15-2009, 01:59 AM
It's funny how everyone attacks the premise (and me of course) saying I'm a dummy.

Here's the point that everyone has missed. The front office and coaches decided that the suckiest line in the history of the Superbowl was important enough to bring back in full. So if we won a Superbowl with arguably the worst punter in Superbowl history why change anything?

Why fix anything when we won a Superbowl? We supposedly have an easier schedule so why do we need an outstanding punter?

What is funny is all the people responding to this are probably the same people who were out of their minds wondering why we traded up and took a punter in the 4th round! Now they see how important Sepulvida is and are just marveling at his "Booming" punts and ability to change the field position.

Dude, just stop now while you are ahead....

You aren't a dummy, I don't think and I don't know you at all, but the original question was REALLY dumb....sorry, no insult intended or anything.

To the rest of Steeler Nation, cut him some slack-- we have no idea how old some of the posters on here are. You could be flaming some 8 year old who is just learning about football and the Steelers....

fansince'76
08-15-2009, 02:02 AM
It's funny how everyone attacks the premise (and me of course) saying I'm a dummy.

Here's the point that everyone has missed. The front office and coaches decided that the suckiest line in the history of the Superbowl was important enough to bring back in full. So if we won a Superbowl with arguably the worst punter in Superbowl history why change anything?

Why fix anything when we won a Superbowl? We supposedly have an easier schedule so why do we need an outstanding punter?

Maybe because said punter was an injury replacement for the regular (far superior) punter and did absolutely nothing to take the job away from the regular (far superior) punter, perhaps? And as far as being "attacked" is concerned, act like a troll and you'll get treated like one.

MACH1
08-15-2009, 02:08 AM
Ahhh I get it. I works in Madden. :doh:

What works real well is to have silverback long snap it instead. That way you don't need a punter.

JackHammer
08-15-2009, 02:28 AM
It's funny how everyone attacks the premise (and me of course) saying I'm a dummy.

Here's the point that everyone has missed. The front office and coaches decided that the suckiest line in the history of the Superbowl was important enough to bring back in full. So if we won a Superbowl with arguably the worst punter in Superbowl history why change anything?

Why fix anything when we won a Superbowl? We supposedly have an easier schedule so why do we need an outstanding punter?


The point that you're missing is that the coaching staff believes that this o-line is young enough, and has shown enough improvement over the course of last season to justify keeping them around. They brought them back because they believe they're going to get better. They didn't bring Berger back because they know he'll never be better than Sep. The idea that we shouldn't try to fix anything, simply because we're the defending champs, is ridiculous. They better look to fix things if they wanna remain the king of the hill. As far as the whole defense and long field thing goes.... if the d does their job, it never becomes an issue. I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that the d won't do it's job.

Galax Steeler
08-15-2009, 07:50 AM
Maybe we should get rid of Sepulveda and get Ernster back.:rofl:

HometownGal
08-15-2009, 08:55 AM
I've had such a laugh viewing all the posts. It really has made my Friday.

I knew I could count on the Steeler Nation to cheer me up!

But really it's the same argument as with the O-line. They sucked but we won a SuperBowl, why change anything- including the punter.

Thanks guys.

I had such a laugh reading your first post. :laughing::toofunny::laughing: Comedy Gold - thank you! :drink:

If you are being serious here, I can't for the life of me understand how you could come to that conclusion. Obviously, the Steelers saw a gaping hole in their punting game, felt a huge need to fill that hole and drafted a very qualified punter (Sepulveda) in the 4th round in the 2007 draft. The Steelers won last year's big game in spite of their punting game - with Sepulveda's boot, opponents are going to be starting their series with their backs against the goal line which is a HUGE advantage for our D, not a disadvantage. :banging:

stillers4me
08-15-2009, 10:22 AM
And Harrison enjoyed the nearly 100 yard sprint after his interception so much that he'd never want to run only 20 yards. :coffee:

Stlrs4Life
08-15-2009, 10:30 AM
Was great to see Sep back. And anyways, if the Defense is worried about getting titred, well, get on the field and get a 3 and out.

ANDYMISIU
08-15-2009, 10:31 AM
It's funny how everyone attacks the premise (and me of course) saying I'm a dummy.

Here's the point that everyone has missed. The front office and coaches decided that the suckiest line in the history of the Superbowl was important enough to bring back in full. So if we won a Superbowl with arguably the worst punter in Superbowl history why change anything?

Why fix anything when we won a Superbowl? We supposedly have an easier schedule so why do we need an outstanding punter?

What is funny is all the people responding to this are probably the same people who were out of their minds wondering why we traded up and took a punter in the 4th round! Now they see how important Sepulvida is and are just marveling at his "Booming" punts and ability to change the field position.

I didn't think it was possible for you to post something more ridiculous than your original post, but you proved me wrong!

But sense there is the slight chance that Riddle_Of_Steel might be right and we are talking to an 8 year old. Please read through some of the posts here and learn a little about the game.

HometownGal
08-15-2009, 10:34 AM
But sense there is the slight chance that Riddle_Of_Steel might be right and we are talking to an 8 year old. Please read through some of the posts here and learn a little about the game.

I can assure you that this one is "legal". :chuckle:

steelpit
08-15-2009, 10:32 PM
Wow! Almost 1000 views on my very first thread. Not too shabby!

X-Terminator
08-15-2009, 10:41 PM
How anyone could possibly think having a superior punter could hurt the defense is beyond my comprehension.

Ugh, my brain hurts...

Texasteel
08-15-2009, 10:51 PM
How anyone could possibly think having a superior punter could hurt the defense is beyond my comprehension.

Ugh, my brain hurts...

Looking at his last post I think he, or she, was just after numbers.

Riddle_Of_Steel
08-15-2009, 11:08 PM
Good golly, how is this thread still running?

FOOTBALL THEORY FAIL....

SteelCityMan786
08-15-2009, 11:12 PM
Is this post a joke or a stab at sarcasm. I do hope you are not serious asking this question. :banging:

I would hope it be sarcasm

deminutah
08-15-2009, 11:42 PM
Wow............The double head slaps say it best.....This is why you don't drink and post.:alcoholic

SteelTalons
08-16-2009, 11:29 AM
Wow! Almost 1000 views on my very first thread. Not too shabby!

:troll: ?

Hammer67
08-16-2009, 12:30 PM
It's funny how everyone attacks the premise (and me of course) saying I'm a dummy.

Here's the point that everyone has missed. The front office and coaches decided that the suckiest line in the history of the Superbowl was important enough to bring back in full. So if we won a Superbowl with arguably the worst punter in Superbowl history why change anything?

Why fix anything when we won a Superbowl? We supposedly have an easier schedule so why do we need an outstanding punter?

What is funny is all the people responding to this are probably the same people who were out of their minds wondering why we traded up and took a punter in the 4th round! Now they see how important Sepulvida is and are just marveling at his "Booming" punts and ability to change the field position.

I don't think I saw anyone call YOU dumb...just the notion put forth. I do agree that arguing a better punter will hurt your defense is kind of silly and totally against football logic. If the only defense of this is "they won the super bowl with a crappy punter, why change now", then that defies logic. Every team needs to get better.

With the O line, they are hoping the younger starters will be able to gel more with experience. That's why they kept them together.

Dude, just stop now while you are ahead....

You aren't a dummy, I don't think and I don't know you at all, but the original question was REALLY dumb....sorry, no insult intended or anything.

To the rest of Steeler Nation, cut him some slack-- we have no idea how old some of the posters on here are. You could be flaming some 8 year old who is just learning about football and the Steelers....

I agree here...

The Duke
08-16-2009, 12:36 PM
How the hell does this reach six pages?

Pimply dan?

steelpit
08-16-2009, 01:39 PM
We only gave up 6.2 punt return yards last season.
We already gave up 8.5 vs. Cardinals. Let's just see how this plays out.

Better punter but more return yards plus more opportunities to go all the way = original premise.

HometownGal
08-16-2009, 02:56 PM
How the hell does this reach six pages?

Pimply dan?

You're right. I think everyone who had an opinion one way or the other had posted such. Time to say night night! :wave: