Week 10 Post Game: Steelers vs Packers

[TheSkeptic]

Yeah, that was ugly

[Crazylegs Starks]

Yikes!

[Half Empty]

I second that. The Steelers are a winning team and we were in it. We „just“ lack … talent. I am still open about Love, sometimes his throws look , sometimes . Our defense does alright too. It is the offense that is hurting us at this point.

How many yards rushing did the Steelers get today?

Still held them to 23 which is alright for me.

Previous Steeler point production - 7, 26, 23, 6,17, 24, 10, 20

[Pckfn23]

[Pugger]

To me, this game was perfect. Jordan Love actually looked permission and seems to be settling in, but the loss helps our quest to get a high draft pick and maybe find our next LT or get Marvin Harrison.

Oh. And Fire Barry.

[Yoop]

true it was a great completion, but the throw was short and those 2 safety's had no chance to recover on Musgrave if the throw was 3 or 5 yrds longer., Love needs to improve on that, the play could have produced more yardage with a better pass.

[Pckfn23]

The throw was not short. The throw was behind whether by decision of Love to keep it away from the safety or, more likely in my estimation, his footwork was to the left too much and it forced an errant throw behind Musgrave.

[packman114]

true it was a great completion, but the throw was short and those 2 safety's had no chance to recover on Musgrave if the throw was 3 or 5 yrds longer., Love needs to improve on that, the play could have produced more yardage with a better pass.

Looks to me like Love thinks Musgrave is going to stay running down the hash lines but while the ball is in the air Musgrave starts drifting towards the middle and has to adjust to the ball. If Musgrave stayed running down the hash he catches it in stride. This is the learning curve they are going through. We don't know if Musgrave adjusted his route towards the middle and was designed to stay on the hash or if Love thought he would adjust to the hash to avoid going towards the safety.

Either way it's a positive play and something to continue to build upon!

[Pckfn23]

Looks to me like Love thinks Musgrave is going to stay running down the hash lines but while the ball is in the air Musgrave starts drifting towards the middle and has to adjust to the ball. If Musgrave stayed running down the hash he catches it in stride.

That is something that could be as well. Love could have expected Musgrave to take that vertical at the hash.

[Madcity_matt]

Had a long thought typed out but it got deleted. Overall pretty pleased with the game. A comeback win would have been great for team confidence, a loss helps our draft stock though.

[Yoop]

The throw was not short. The throw was behind whether by decision of Love to keep it away from the safety or, more likely in my estimation, his footwork was to the left too much and it forced an errant throw behind Musgrave.

course it was short, possibly footwork issue, sure, but it was still short, when you see receivers doing 180's to make the catch, obviously the ball wasn't thrown far enough, or did it led Musgrave, I don't have a issue defending Love, but I wont defend his lack of accuracy, over and over , week after week, sorry

[Pckfn23]

The throw was not short. The throw was behind whether by decision of Love to keep it away from the safety or, more likely in my estimation, his footwork was to the left too much and it forced an errant throw behind Musgrave.

course it was short, possibly footwork issue, sure, but it was still short, when you see receivers doing 180's to make the catch, obviously the ball wasn't thrown far enough, I don't have a issue defending Love, but I wont defend his lack of accuracy, over and over , week after week, sorry

A 180 means it is behind the receiver. Musgrave also caught it above his head. Not short.

The last sentence in my post specifically pointed to bad footwork leading to an errant pass. That is my thoughts, but [mention]packman114[/mention] also pointed out the expectation may have been for Musgrave to take it up the near hash. That is plausible too.

[Yoop]

The throw was not short. The throw was behind whether by decision of Love to keep it away from the safety or, more likely in my estimation, his footwork was to the left too much and it forced an errant throw behind Musgrave.

course it was short, possibly footwork issue, sure, but it was still short, when you see receivers doing 180's to make the catch, obviously the ball wasn't thrown far enough, I don't have a issue defending Love, but I wont defend his lack of accuracy, over and over , week after week, sorry

A 180 means it is behind the receiver. Musgrave also caught it above his head. Not short.

The last sentence in my post specifically pointed to bad footwork leading to an errant pass.

if Love would have led Musgrave which was the first fail, he could have put the ball deeper and Musgrave could have caught it in stride, and possibly got another 10 yrds out of that play, maybe more.

the only way it wasn't underthrown is do to the poor throw which forced Musgrave to cut his progress and turn around to make the catch, your defending Love making a poor throw to support in your opinion that it wasn't under thrown.

[Pckfn23]

course it was short, possibly footwork issue, sure, but it was still short, when you see receivers doing 180's to make the catch, obviously the ball wasn't thrown far enough, I don't have a issue defending Love, but I wont defend his lack of accuracy, over and over , week after week, sorry

A 180 means it is behind the receiver. Musgrave also caught it above his head. Not short.

The last sentence in my post specifically pointed to bad footwork leading to an errant pass.

if Love would have led Musgrave which was the first fail, he could have put the ball deeper and Musgrave could have caught it in stride, and possibly got another 10 yrds out of that play, maybe more.

the only way it wasn't underthrown is do to the poor throw which forced Musgrave to cut his progress and turn around to make the catch, your defending Love making a poor throw to support in your opinion that it wasn't under thrown.

Do you know what the word errant means? I suspect you do not since the word completely proves your theory wrong.

his footwork was to the left too much and it forced an errant throw behind Musgrave.

Where did I defend Love making a poor throw? I support reality, nothing more. It was behind Musgrave, not a short throw.

[Yoop]

A 180 means it is behind the receiver. Musgrave also caught it above his head. Not short.

The last sentence in my post specifically pointed to bad footwork leading to an errant pass.

if Love would have led Musgrave which was the first fail, he could have put the ball deeper and Musgrave could have caught it in stride, and possibly got another 10 yrds out of that play, maybe more.

the only way it wasn't underthrown is do to the poor throw which forced Musgrave to cut his progress and turn around to make the catch, your defending Love making a poor throw to support in your opinion that it wasn't under thrown.

Do you know what the word errant means? I suspect you do not since the word completely proves your theory wrong.

Where did I defend Love making a poor throw? I support reality, nothing more. It was behind Musgrave, not a short throw.

read what I wrote, I said I, thats me, wont continue to defend Love, never mentioned you.

jesus christ you are frustrating, Love could have led that ball out 3 to 5 feet Farther and Musgrave would have caught it in stride, course it was under thrown, and poorly thrown.

whats real is you would have never have cut Rodgers this slack

[Pckfn23]

if Love would have led Musgrave which was the first fail, he could have put the ball deeper and Musgrave could have caught it in stride, and possibly got another 10 yrds out of that play, maybe more.

the only way it wasn't underthrown is do to the poor throw which forced Musgrave to cut his progress and turn around to make the catch, your defending Love making a poor throw to support in your opinion that it wasn't under thrown.

Do you know what the word errant means? I suspect you do not since the word completely proves your theory wrong.

Where did I defend Love making a poor throw? I support reality, nothing more. It was behind Musgrave, not a short throw.

read what I wrote, I said I, thats me, wont continue to defend Love, never mentioned you.

jesus christ you are frustrating, Love could have led that ball out 3 to 5 feet Farther and Musgrave would have caught it in stride, course it was under thrown, and poorly thrown.

whats real is you would have never have cut Rodgers this slack

I don't have to reread what you wrote, your last sentence shows what you are getting at. What slack? Do you know what errant means? Do you realize I have been blaming Love for an inaccurate pass this entire time?

Had Love thrown it down the exact middle of the field it would have hit Musgrave in stride. It was not under thrown. Had Love thrown that ball 3-5 feet further on the same line it would have fallen incomplete over and behind Musgrave.

It's as [mention]go pak go[/mention] already mentioned recently. You're doing this just for the sake of it. You're free to live in whatever Fantasyland you choose.

[APB]

You guys and your insistence on nit-picking successful downfield plays is killing me.

[Pckfn23]

[Pckfn23]

[Scott4Pack]

Gotta stop blaming DCs for systemic problems.

Fans have blamed 3 straight DCs now for not being able to stop the run.

Lupe, no. Stop it. Did you count how many plays we had the 2-man front Nascar out there today? Joe didn't even care to stop the run.

Think about this. The Steelers prefer to run the ball a lot. And they are decent at it too. So, we're on their field and we pull out that 2-man front like 80% of the time? Seriously? I wish I had an actual count of how many snaps, including third and short plays. Joe did NOT want to stop the run.

Was he too worried about needing max coverage on the back end, with Quay and Jaire out? Maybe.

Did he really think that Pickett was going to pass us to death? Give me a break.

This one game is the one where I pull the plug on Joe Barry. Get him outta there! Never soon enough.

there are always some sort of defense for Joe Barry, either the secondary is weak do to injury's or we play a hot QB/receiver team and have to play the nickel package, theirs always excuses, it's true we had to play both tines yesterday, both Balentine and Valentine did there part though, still Barry must have lacked enough faith in them to play a heavy front and dedicate himself to stopping the run.

I'd like to see us completely restock the defensive coaching, bring in a established DC prospect and let him bring in his assistants, and let him run that, with zero interference from Lafleur, who has all he can do prepping this offense

I would agree with your point that Barry probably feels like he is vulnerable on the back end, so he floods the back end with DBs and LBs. But when your major arteries are already gashed, you don't over-protect for what MIGHT occur. You deal with the bleeding now and then see what you can do to protect the rest. Or at least mix it up and force the QB to make changes on the field.

This is just embarrassing. And it's been YEARS now.