Blame coaches for SB loss

[thumper]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/7...uper-bowl-loss

Hate to say it, but this guy is right. The coaches did nothing to
plan for spread offense. They stubbornly stayed with their same
D, even though that exact same D had been losing to teams with
spread O's and good QBs. They should have taken a lesson from
what the Jets did to beat NE. We would have had a much better
chance at winning. A huge wasted opportunity for another ring.

In New England, the Jets used a brilliant game plan to beat Tom Brady. First, they switched from man-on-man to zone coverage. This not only brought a different defense that the Patriots had not planned for, but it allowed the Jets defense to disguise their coverage.

Quarterbacks like Rodgers and Brady often use the spread formation to look for mismatches and usually know who to throw even before the play. The zone helped avoid this.

Secondly, New York didn't blitz often. Another plan going against how the Jets typical operate, they rarely sent more than four players in this divisional round game. This allowed the Jets more players to play coverage against the pass. The most genius part of the game plan was how New York sent these players.

New England, like Green Bay, rely greatly on timing between QB and WR. One tactic against these teams is to get physical with the WRs on the line of scrimmage and use bump and run coverage by the players covering.

The inside slot guys are much more difficult to successfully play bump and run on since they are usually starting behind the line of scrimmage and have more field to play (closer to the middle of the field, they have more options). The players in the slots often have success in these schemes which is why Wes Welker is huge in New England, and Jordy Nelson looked like a hero in the Super Bowl.

[finesward]

Problem with that idea is the Jets have 2 starting caliber CB's (1 arguably the #1 CB in the NFL), a #1 draft choice as the nickle back, and solid depth behind him. We have Ike taylor and a bunch of undersized scrubs behind him. I doubt the coaches didn't look at what the Jets did, or at how they could beat GB, I just think they chose to play the game plan that gave them the best chance to win. And it did to be fair, we had a chance to win the game at the end. I think the coaches put the best players in the positions to make plays but those players didn't (harrison, woodley, polamalu, ben) On the flip side GB's players did make plays (matthews, rodgers, and the cb that ran back ben's int)

Sitting back in zone would of put our suspect CB's in positions to make plays, so why do that when you know it's your weakest area? Whatever happened to playing to your strengths?

[Sixburgher]

The Steelers would have had a much better chance at winning if they hadn't coughed the ball up three times to the Packers zero.

[55BaileyFan]

We would have had a better chance to win if we ran more. Hell, in the second half if we didn't have those damn three and outs because we kept throwing the ball then we could have won. Our D forced GB offense to go three and out 5 times in a row. I don't care much about the spread offense, I know Mendy coughed up the ball but one fumble doesn't kill the rest of his game. If we ran more we could have won. I won't put it all on Tomlin because Arians was calling the plays...but when are we going to take away his ability to do that and find a better coord....like Ken Anderson.

[thumper]

Originally Posted by finesward

Problem with that idea is the Jets have 2 starting caliber CB's (1 arguably the #1 CB in the NFL), a #1 draft choice as the nickle back, and solid depth behind him. We have Ike taylor and a bunch of undersized scrubs behind him. I doubt the coaches didn't look at what the Jets did, or at how they could beat GB, I just think they chose to play the game plan that gave them the best chance to win. And it did to be fair, we had a chance to win the game at the end. I think the coaches put the best players in the positions to make plays but those players didn't (harrison, woodley, polamalu, ben) On the flip side GB's players did make plays (matthews, rodgers, and the cb that ran back ben's int)

Sitting back in zone would of put our suspect CB's in positions to make plays, so why do that when you know it's your weakest area? Whatever happened to playing to your strengths?

You made a really good point about the quality of their CBs vs. ours.
Revis might be the best CB in the world. Cromartie - although a dumb
ass - is mad skilled physically. And I thought Wilson was going to be a
good player, but I don't think he did much as a rookie.

That being said, our D did get diced up under what they ran. Could a
different strategy done better? I don't know for sure but I know they one
they ran sucked.....although in the 2nd half they had some nice stops.
I think an even bigger factor other than scheme was poor health. McFadden
wasn't right, with a bad hip and abs. Troy was clearly playing on 1 leg.
If those guys were healthy, we win, even with the 3 turn overs vs. none.

[thumper]

Originally Posted by Sixburgher

The Steelers would have had a much better chance at winning if they hadn't coughed the ball up three times to the Packers zero.

Totally true. But that being said, the supposed awesome D did
not play awesome at all.

[ricardisimo]

I blame Obama.

[steeltown36]

Yeah the spread offense has always been our Achilles Heel. But hey we had a chance to win on the final drive and didnt get the job done. I think with less turnovers we couldve possibly won, despite the inferior play of our corners.

Maybe start doing a little more bumping at the line.

[finesward]

Originally Posted by thumper

You made a really good point about the quality of their CBs vs. ours.
Revis might be the best CB in the world. Cromartie - although a dumb
ass - is mad skilled physically. And I thought Wilson was going to be a
good player, but I don't think he did much as a rookie.

That being said, our D did get diced up under what they ran. Could a
different strategy done better? I don't know for sure but I know they one
they ran sucked.....although in the 2nd half they had some nice stops.
I think an even bigger factor other than scheme was poor health. McFadden
wasn't right, with a bad hip and abs. Troy was clearly playing on 1 leg.
If those guys were healthy, we win, even with the 3 turn overs vs. none.

With the injuries to pola and bmac I don't know if a different scheme would of made much a difference. It could of been much worse, and to credit our CB's they were a hobbled group going up against a much more talented WR corps then they had played all year. You can't underestimate how an injury here or there can take a ferocious D like the steelers were last year and turn them into beatable. Look at what jacksonville did against us the year a.smith and pola were out. Ran all over us and we couldn't make a stop on 3rd down to save our life.

Wilson got burnt a few times when he had to step in early b/c of the injuries they had but that's to be expected of a green CB. He will be solid for them.

I don't think our offensive gameplan was to throw the ball like we did, but the game kinda dictated we start playing catch up. Unfortunately that's the same kind of game our D thrives in and so does GB's. I'm not an arians homer by any means but the blame should be evenly passed around from the coaching staff down, hopefully they all learn from them and we come back strong in the years to come.

[SacknificentStew56]

I'm over the Super Bowl. Bad enough I have to see and talk to a Pack fan at work even though he's not the "kick a man while he down" type. I refuse to open that wound up again. Maybe it's just me. I'm ready for the new season if it ever happens.