Counter-Attack with Zach

An angry Pittsburgh sports fan ranting about everything

Playing To Win Versus Playing Not-To-Lose: Is There Validity in Both?

Posted by:

|

On:

|

As the final whistle blew at Acrisure Stadium (it still pains me to call it anything other than Heinz Field) yesterday to cement a 17-10 Steelers victory over their arch-rivals from Baltimore, I was in a state of disbelief. After a first half in which the home team could only muster three points and less than 100 offensive yards while the Ravens ran rampant through the Steelers’ defense (with the exception of a fumble expertly forced by Larry Ogunjobi), the game script inexplicably flipped in the second half to the point where the Steelers outscored the 3-1 Ravens 14-0. There was neither rhyme nor reason as to why the Ravens’ offense moved away from the quarterback run with Lamar Jackson, but the result was a collapse punctuated by a very confused expression on John Harbaugh’s face which has doubtlessly become a meme.

There were certainly moments during the game where I was confused as to what Baltimore’s coaching staff was thinking. Up 10-3 at the end of the first half, they decided to go for it on fourth and short in field goal range instead of trotting out Justin Tucker–the most accurate placekicker in the history of the NFL–to give them a two-possession lead over one of the worst offenses in the league (re: Matt Canada). They did not convert, and the Steelers went into the locker room down 7 as opposed to 10. On its face, I did not see a problem with Harbaugh’s aggressive decision, as our defense was having trouble putting together stops. He was playing to win the game by potentially going up 17-3, a lead which would be almost insurmountable given the state of the Steelers’ offense. However, this decision did not pay off, and it lent a spark to a team that desperately needed one.

In the second half, the Ravens’ offense itself was paltry. Numerous dropped passes by a much-maligned receiving corps added to a growingly frustrated Baltimore team who could not seem to put the Steelers away. The defense–led by T.J. Watt and Alex Highsmith–certainly stepped up, as did the special teams unit that blocked a punt for a safety. To give credit where it is due, the Steelers’ defense and special teams were excellent in the second half with one noticeable blemish.

In the fourth quarter, the Steelers had forced another punt, and Gunner Olszewski was to return it. He fumbled by running into his own teammate, giving the Ravens a very short field to exploit and put the Steelers away. Instead of running the ball–their M.O.–and working their way towards the end zone while chewing clock, Lamar Jackson decided to throw…a horribly under-thrown ball that was intercepted by Joey Porter Jr. This turnover led to a long touchdown drive capped off by a 41-yard George Pickens touchdown reception. That was (more or less) the game.

The Ravens played that game to win. Often times, you will hear a team be maligned for being too conservative with the ball, or “playing not-to-lose”. However, there are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches. There is validity to both aggression and passiveness based on two factors: the team you are, and the team against whom you are competing.

The Team You Are

This is reasonably self-explanatory. If your team has an offense adept at moving the ball and/or a defense that can consistently force punts and/or turnovers, it is sensible to be aggressive. For instance, let us examine the San Francisco 49ers team that curb-stomped the Dallas Cowboys last night. With a very good offensive line, arguably the best running back in the league, a top-five tight end, two good receivers, and one of the best defenses, it would make sense for the Niners to be aggressive. They know that they have a good chance of pushing the ball down the field as well as their defense bailing them out if a mistake occurs. The Steelers, on the other hand, have a putrid offense and a defense that gets overworked as a result of such a poor offense. Should they be aggressive? Probably not, as the offense is not built to pick up chunks of yardage, and failure to be successful in these attack-minded ventures adds to the large amount of pressure already piled on the defense.

The Team Against Whom You Are Playing

One thing that the Ravens failed to realize during that game was that the Steelers were incapable of producing without help from Baltimore’s mistakes. If they had simply kicked a field goal at the end of the first half instead of deciding to go for it on fourth down, the game would have been much different. The Steelers are not built to come from behind, as evidenced by them being 3rd-worst in total yards per game and 4th-worst in points per game. Had they been more passive, the Ravens would have buried the Steelers by forcing them to make mistakes. Granted, it probably would have also been a Baltimore victory if their receivers could catch, but that is a story for another day.

In the era of prime Tom Brady and prime Peyton Manning, there was always a familiar refrain that emanated from the commentary team–“You have to score touchdowns. You cannot kick field goals against the [Patriots/Colts/Broncos] and expect to win”. This was true. Kicking field goals as opposed to going for touchdowns was a death sentence against some of the more potent offenses in NFL history, as only scoring 3 points on a possession seemed to be a waste given how quickly the greatest quarterbacks in the league could matriculate the ball down the field. Against those teams, you had to be aggressive to have a chance of winning the game (or simply being competitive). You were not going to force many punts, turnovers, or even field goal attempts with Manning’s ability to find Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne with what seemed to be a telepathic relationship between quarterback and receivers. You were not going to get Tom Brady off the field on third down when he could throw anywhere in Rob Gronkowski’s vicinity and he would inevitably catch it.

The fundamental difference between the approach that teams should have taken against the greatest quarterbacks of all-time and the 2023 Steelers is this: it is significantly easier to beat the latter because they have neither the personnel nor the play-calling to contend with a half-decent offensive performance. The Steelers average 15.8 points per game–had the Ravens kicked a field goal at the end of the first half, they only would have needed one field goal in the second half to surpass this mark. Meanwhile, 16 points would have been a losing effort against a Patrick Mahomes-led team or even a middle-of-the-road offense.

Therefore, there is validity to both playing to win and playing to avoid defeat. The method by which a coach should abide is dependent on both his team and his opponent. You can afford to take more liberties if you know that you need to hang 30 points on the scoreboard. If you know you only need 17-20 points to win, you should approach the game more conservatively and allow the other team to make mistakes. The Ravens should have done the latter, but did the former, ending disastrously. I certainly am not going to complain, but Ravens fans should be furious with the coaching decisions of John Harbaugh.

HOCKEY SEASON RETURNS TOMORROW!

Posted by

in