Steelers' anemic pass rush on pace for fewest sacks since 1988
By Alan Robinson| Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2012, 7:24 p.m.
There's no need to think up any catchy sack-related nickname for these Steelers. Blitzburgh, it's not.
They suit up an average of 23 players on defense every week, but they have only 12 sacks in seven games. J.J. Watt of the Houston Texans has 9 1⁄2 sacks by himself.
Jason Worilds (who played nine snaps Sunday against Washington) and Larry Foote lead with three sacks each.
At their present pace, the Steelers will finish with 27 sacks, the fewest since they had 19 in 1988. The team low for a 16-game season is 18 in 1980.
“We had only one sack (against the Redskins), but I think we did a great job of putting the pressure on,” outside linebacker LaMarr Woodley said.
The Giants have 21 sacks, led by Jason Pierre-Paul's 5 1⁄2.
Short passes come up large
All that dinking and dunking is adding up. Ben Roethlisberger's passing numbers are up across the board from a season ago, when he was throwing deeper but less consistently. He is 179 of 268 for 1,987 yards, 14 touchdowns and 3 interceptions, compared to 147 of 234 for 1,937 yards, 12 touchdowns and 6 interceptions through seven games in 2011. The only major passing stat that has declined is yards per attempt, from 8.28 to 7.41.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.