Originally Posted by GoFor7
harrison'samonster seemed to get it from his last post. I guess I make sense to at least one person.
No one is saying the defense lost that game. They kept the Steelers in it all night. But for the past two seasons this defense has been unable to make splash plays and give the offense a short field. Against Baltimore with Ben out, the defense needed to make a splash play. Do you really expect Byron Leftwich to lead the offense down an 80+ yard field and score consistently? Do you expect Charlie Batch to do it against Cleveland? Being ranked high as far as yards and points is great and will give the Steelers a chance to win most of the time, but the Steelers aren't getting to the Super Bowl if the splash plays don't come more often.
Special teams also bears some blame in that regard as the return game is practically non-existent and the coverage is a joke.
If you told the 32 head coaches that their defense would only give up 3 points, every coach would take that in a heartbeat.
Sure, it does not 100% guarantee a win:
--rain might even the playing field
--some weird special teams fiasco occurs
--the offense gets shut out (0-3)
The other 97 times out of 100, 3 points wins the game.
Football is simple: the team with the most points wins the game
. And, 3 points is the second lowest total that a defense can give up (zero being the least amount).
You "say" that you do not blame the defense, but then you turn right around and say that the defense should have given the offense a short field. WHY? The defense gave them something even better: a deficit of only 3 points. Any offense should
be able to score more than 3 points... even a broken-ribbed led offense. Furthermore, Byron did not have to "consistently" lead his offense on 80 yard drives; he needed two FGs. You act like he had to overcome a three touchdown deficit. Again, he had to surpass 3 points... and again, even a broken-ribbed QB should have been able to score 6 points.
Regardless, even if the defense had produced a short field, what then??? Because, I remember Mike Wallace not dragging his toe on a TD (a TD that would have given the Steelers the win). So, short field or not, the offense did not come through (i.e. did not capitalize on red-zone opportunities).
Furthermore, if given an "either or" option, as opposed to a shortened field
, I say that the offense would actually prefer to only have to score more than 3 points
. As in, if we asked the offense:
Would you rather your average starting point for a drive be at the 35 yard line?
Would you rather the defense only allow 3 points (i.e. you only have to score 6 points)???
I think that all 32 offensive coordinators and/or head coaches would choose the latter.