Lessons from the Steelers and Packers

I've been reading over the comments on Football Outsiders and one of the tangents going on is how the Steelers defense stuck to what they always do and the Pats ate them alive. 3-4 Zone Blitz seemingly is good enough to handle a slew of opponents throughout the season but is easily dissected when a good OC, HC et al get to work and draw up a game plan.

It made me think about some of the parallels both in philosophy to the Steelers and the commitment to almosts that the Packers currently inhabit.

1. We stick to our guns regardless of opponent on both sides of the ball. There is limited practice and it is a tall order to get defensive players to be proficient with multiple different coverage looks. There is an upside to this in that players aren't as likely to be tripping over themselves mentally on any given play - the downside is the extreme brittleness both to injury and being outcoached (or in the case of the Rams, facing a talent mismatch that disrupts our offensive gameplan so much).

Tomlin, despite the good he brings to the table as a coach also has his share of "WTF ARE YOU DOING?!?!" moments like any successful coach does.

It is in my estimation that the Seahawks are similar to the Steelers in that having a solid organizational commitment to a way of playing football raises the floor of season success on a per season basis, but inhibits playoff potential because they only know one way to do things and are seemingly unaware or unconcerned by the shortfalls of that.

2. The Packers, have stuck by Mike McCarthy and Dom Capers since 2009. And why shouldn't they? Theyve made the playoffs every single year! They won a SB! Theyve been to 3 conference championships! As an outside observer its easy to pinpoint some of McCarthy's weaknesses as a coach. Also the Packers team building is decidedly different than ours but the results are similar. Consistently making playoffs and letting fate run its course. It seems like a very passive way of approaching things but again - they consistently make the playoffs so whos to argue, right?

The way I see it, teams like the Packers, Steelers and yes, even us, have fulfilled a baseline quota for success. It means we have identified some key components to sustained competitive football in the regular season, have key talent that allows them to stay committed to their way of playing football and do a lot of things better than the rest of the league and make the playoffs regularly.

As a thought experiment, if you were a fan of either the Packers or Steelers (perish the thought), would you be making noise to shake the coaching tree a bit? If not, how much of your rationale would apply to Pete Carroll et al? If so, are you refraining from applying that rationale to PC et al? At what point would you hold PC et al to greater standard than McCarthy and Tomlin? Would you be happy if the Seahawks echoed the Packers success?

I think it can be informative to view our issues with potential stagnation by seeing how other teams in a similar position are dealing with it (or not dealing with it).

mrt144":23katn61 said:

I've been reading over the comments on Football Outsiders and one of the tangents going on is how the Steelers defense stuck to what they always do and the Pats ate them alive. 3-4 Zone Blitz seemingly is good enough to handle a slew of opponents throughout the season but is easily dissected when a good OC, HC et al get to work and draw up a game plan.

Click to expand...

Imagine the outcry if they changed it up and still got torn apart by the Patriots though. It would be "stick to what worked for you all season!"

Tom Brady and Bill Belichick have done that to defenses for 15 years and are without a doubt the most exceptional team in NFL history - the problem is that this has set some kind of basically unobtainable target goal for fans of teams like Seattle, Pittsburgh and Green Bay. Because we're not making it to 7 superbowls over a 16 year spell (just 3 since 2005 for us and Pittsburgh - the only 2 teams in the league to make it to more than 2 since the Patriots won their first).

Yes, Seattle lost 2 of those 3, whereas Pittsburgh (and New York) have won 2 in that time, but the point is that it's not very easy!

The Steelers are an interesting example though as they won 2 superbowls in the three years after Tomlin took over, went and had 2 8-8 seasons and then are back to 10+ win seasons in each of the last 3 years, including the AFCCG this year. Look at this place after we went 10-5-1 and won another playoff game - can you imagine having 2 8-8 seasons in a row!?

Decisive action. Your assistant coach can't keep up? Fired. You system is figured out? Chang it. Who has noticed that Bill B has completely switched his 34 to a 43? You are either growing or dying in the NFL.

Very good analysis mrt.

I very much equate the Hawks to the Steelers and Packers -- two teams who have an established way of doing things and are Super Bowl contenders seemingly every year. We are the teams that I consider the league's elite. All three have sound defenses and highly proficient quarterbacks.

The outlier, of course, is the Patriots. It's as though teams are just wishing Brady announces his retirement so others can have their shot. It should be noted too though that in 3 of the last 5 years, the Patriots exited the playoffs with just 1 win, same as us.

themunn":2yw5csi4 said:

mrt144":2yw5csi4 said:

I've been reading over the comments on Football Outsiders and one of the tangents going on is how the Steelers defense stuck to what they always do and the Pats ate them alive. 3-4 Zone Blitz seemingly is good enough to handle a slew of opponents throughout the season but is easily dissected when a good OC, HC et al get to work and draw up a game plan.

Click to expand...

Imagine the outcry if they changed it up and still got torn apart by the Patriots though. It would be "stick to what worked for you all season!"

Tom Brady and Bill Belichick have done that to defenses for 15 years and are without a doubt the most exceptional team in NFL history - the problem is that this has set some kind of basically unobtainable target goal for fans of teams like Seattle, Pittsburgh and Green Bay. Because we're not making it to 7 superbowls over a 16 year spell (just 3 since 2005 for us and Pittsburgh - the only 2 teams in the league to make it to more than 2 since the Patriots won their first).

Yes, Seattle lost 2 of those 3, whereas Pittsburgh (and New York) have won 2 in that time, but the point is that it's not very easy!

Click to expand...

I think that coaches are cognitively conervative and loathe putting themselves and their rep on the line by trying something they arent proficient at but might give them a better shot, especially in the face of repeated historical instances where sticking to your guns failed as it has for Tomlin. At my most cynical, doing what you always do (the one time the Steelers didnt do their 3 4 zone blitz in 2011, they beat the Pats) and it failing allows you to shift blame to players not doing what you expected. Basically even succesful NFL coaches will find ways to distribute blame away from themselves even if its subconcious and conflated with thinking commitment to a style is the lynch pin to success.

Im of the mind that there are many ways to get to the playoffs and feel validated by comparing to the Steelers and Packers. Even though I enjoy the racket Pete runs, it has its limitations based on opponent aptitudes. And I find similar failings with the Packers and Steelers. I really do feel that McCarthy especially exemplifies the whole "We will eventually win Superbowls by virtue of the factors and opponents aligning our way as long as we're in the playoffs."

I know being the Pats is a lofty goal but seems like we resemble the Packers and Steelers a lot more than the Pats when it comes to the question of coach and coordinator retention and philosophical commitment to a style of football.

I leave it to you guys and gals to make peace with that.

Also, the playoffs are the crucible of proving coaching mettle and its clear to me that some coaches absolutely limit their team at times - hell Pete did that by squandering the drive at the end of the first half, Garrett did that by sacrificing a down to stop the clock at the end of the game, Tomlin did that by resting on the laurels of the 3-4 zone blitz against a QB and team that feasts on it and has done so previously across multiple seasons, McCarthy did it by having no recognition that his old and busted defense should be on the field as little as possible after a certain point in the game and pulling out every stop on offense and special teams in a video game fashion to compensate. Some are more afraid of failing with doing something sufficiently and noticeably different that can be directly related to their choices than stoicly going down with something that is proven to work some of the time (but without any recognition for why it worked). There is a fear of greater loss because you're not only losing, you're losing by your own hand as well when you didn't seemingly have to and there's no way to validate other outcomes.

I've always disliked the comment and attitude you hear both Pete and Bevell use "It's not about them, it's about us". I get what they are promoting, but YES it is about them AND us both!. You need to take advantage of weakness or advantage and attack it, if you don't you left something out that would have helped you. Most would call that arrogance, and no team is good enough to hold the course indefinitely and stay on top. One huge reason I want Cable gone, his results are clearly poor, keeps making the same mistakes, and keeps "hoping" that time will heal them. High stakes arrogance IMO.

Good thread and analysis, well done OP.

As another thought experiment imagine if Rock Paper Scissors had weighted probabilities to success behind them instead of binary success? Rock beats scissors 2/3 times. Paper beats Rock 2/3 times. Scissors beats Paper 2/3rds of the time. Subtract 1/4 from the probability of a win if it goes against what you normally play. What Tomlin in effect did was play Rock against Paper as he did previously against them throughout his tenure (except one time he won), and as he does throughout the season against a variety of opponents who throw Scissors through his tenure.

We can tinker with the numbers to reflect what we really think being more dynamic in selection does to win probability but the thrust of this is getting you to think about your strategy in a way where you can't leave options off the table merely because they don't fit with what you always do.

One of the ironic things about long tenured successful coaches is that in a way, you'd expect coaches with long tenures to have a bit more leeway in going off core gameplan and being adept in handling rebuffs for doing so. Example:

"We looked at previous game film, we thought we had a better chance doing something we aren't used to doing because what we normally do has been wholly insufficient in the past. Not only that but we looked at some of the teams and games that have enjoyed success against the opponent and broke down some of the factors of those successes and thought we could do just enough of that right to make a meaningful difference even if it plays away from familiarity. We came up short today but we at least we gave it a good shot and we can use this as a foundation as to how we better prepare for a variety of opponents in the future and how we mitigate our weaknesses as well. I just couldn't abide doing something that hasn't shown any capability of inhibiting them to work this time, so I took a valid risk and it too came up short."

My view is still that this is mostly due to narrative fallacy, partly obscured when discussing the Patriots because they have been the best team in the NFL for a decade and a half.

A similar writeup after the Seahawks victory in Foxborough this season could just have easily have identified that one of the reasons why we won is because we stuck to our system and what we excel at. And yet, with the benefit of hindsight and a long view, it's reasonable to say that the Patriots had a good chance to win both that game in November as well as this game in January because they are simply slightly better than the next closest teams. The difference in outcomes can be entirely explained by uncertainty.

mrt144":1ectf1ru said:

As another thought experiment imagine if Rock Paper Scissors had weighted probabilities to success behind them instead of binary success?

Click to expand...

The complexity you're adding over a dice analogy isn't worth the trouble, ie. dice rolls where the Patriots win on 1-5 explain the results just as well with one less required degree of freedom. Poor outcomes will always make the underlying decisions appear faulty at the surface level and the easiest target for criticism is a bad outcome. Rational analysis is an attempt to disentangle the likelihoods from the outcomes and the hardest part is in not learning too much from any single result.

AgentDib":1dbm030r said:

My view is still that this is mostly due to narrative fallacy, partly obscured when discussing the Patriots because they have been the best team in the NFL for a decade and a half.

A similar writeup after the Seahawks victory in Foxborough this season could just have easily have identified that one of the reasons why we won is because we stuck to our system and what we excel at. And yet, with the benefit of hindsight and a long view, it's reasonable to say that the Patriots had a good chance to win both that game in November as well as this game in January because they are simply slightly better than the next closest teams. The difference in outcomes can be entirely explained by uncertainty.

mrt144":1dbm030r said:

As another thought experiment imagine if Rock Paper Scissors had weighted probabilities to success behind them instead of binary success?

Click to expand...

The complexity you're adding over a dice analogy isn't worth the trouble, ie. dice rolls where the Patriots win on 1-5 explain the results just as well with one less required degree of freedom. Poor outcomes will always make the underlying decisions appear faulty at the surface level and the easiest target for criticism is a bad outcome. Rational analysis is an attempt to disentangle the likelihoods from the outcomes and the hardest part is in not learning too much from any single result.

Click to expand...

Holy SHIT Professor Dib !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AgentDib":34kzkrii said:

My view is still that this is mostly due to narrative fallacy, partly obscured when discussing the Patriots because they have been the best team in the NFL for a decade and a half.

A similar writeup after the Seahawks victory in Foxborough this season could just have easily have identified that one of the reasons why we won is because we stuck to our system and what we excel at. And yet, with the benefit of hindsight and a long view, it's reasonable to say that the Patriots had a good chance to win both that game in November as well as this game in January because they are simply slightly better than the next closest teams. The difference in outcomes can be entirely explained by uncertainty.

mrt144":34kzkrii said:

As another thought experiment imagine if Rock Paper Scissors had weighted probabilities to success behind them instead of binary success?

Click to expand...

The complexity you're adding over a dice analogy isn't worth the trouble, ie. dice rolls where the Patriots win on 1-5 explain the results just as well with one less required degree of freedom. Poor outcomes will always make the underlying decisions appear faulty at the surface level and the easiest target for criticism is a bad outcome. Rational analysis is an attempt to disentangle the likelihoods from the outcomes and the hardest part is in not learning too much from any single result.

Click to expand...

I didnt want to turn this into a Blood Bowl post

I would just like to say that the substance provided in this post needs to reach the coaching staff with regards to how we play the rams every year. I just don't get the feeling we change a thing, and we play into their hand. Shock their brains with a no huddle, bust out a straight up WCO, do SOMETHING different instead of beating your head against the wall and expecting a different outcome each time.

Optimus25":31dphb3w said:

I would just to say that the substance provided in this post needs to reach the coaching staff with regards to how we play the rams every year. I just don't get the feeling we change a thing, and we play into their hand. Shock their brains with a no huddle, bust out a straight up WCO, do SOMETHING different instead of beating your head against the wall and expecting a different outcome each time.

Click to expand...

You'd think that but with new coaching staff there maybe they don't have sauce on how to beat us when we do what we do yet.