Buy Warren's 350-Page, 2020 Football Preview

Home , Alex Highsmith, Anthony Chickillo, Antoine Brooks, Artie Burns, Benny Snell, Breon Borders

CLICK TO BUY WARREN'S 350-PAGE, 2020 FOOTBALL PREVIEW "Simply the best analytical 2020 football preview you can buy" A FIVE-TIME AMAZON BESTSELLER - NOW AVAILABLE AT EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT TEAM CHAPTER LAYOUT AND DEFINITIONS

PAGE 1: Schedule strength based on opponent Vegas win totals // asterisk next to draft indicates comp pick // Lineup & Cap Hits lists projected starting roster shaded based on cap to analyze where cap $ is being spent // Key players lost if null shows unsigned players to date

PAGE 2: Advanced stats including EPA (Expected Points Added), which is a metric that looks at the Expected Points (EP) of the down, distance, and field position situation at the start of a play and contrasting it with the situation at the end of the play. Thus, the difference, or “added” points are considered EPA, and could be positive or negative), and Success Rate are calculated on a per-play basis. Success rate is defined as frequency a play gains required yardage to stay ahead of sticks, and is a rate stat // EDSR is a custom metric Warren created to measure early down success and measures efficiency on early downs and ability to bypass third down offensively or force opponents into third downs defensively // INT = interceptions, FUM = fumbles // Weekly EDSR chart bottom left looks at whether team won the EDSR battle (comparing both sides of the ball vs opponent) each week, green bar = EDSR win, red bar = EDSR loss

PAGE 3: logo in Strength of Schedule graphic is the 2020 forecast, the shaded target is 2019 actual based on 2019 season through week 17 // Schedule Variance analyzes ease in schedule as compared to the rest of teams. Red and 1 indicates hardest jumps in difficulty, Green and 32 indicates easiest shift in schedule // Health by unit based on Adjusted Games Lost from Football Outsiders // Weekly betting lines are accurate as of date of publication

PAGE 4: Usage Rate by Score examines percentage of a team’s total plays in that given score margin which are given (via rush attempt or target) to that player // Share of Offensive Plays by Type looks at total rushes or passes each player received // Completion Percentage by Depth shows completion depth (aDOT aka average depth of target) along x-axis and completion rate along y-axis. Grey dashed line and dots are league averages based on select downs (early = first and second, or third pulled out separately) // Rank of Defensive Pass or Rush efficiency by week looks at prior-yr final rankings of current-yr opponents to get a sense of pockets of easy or tough schedules – prior yr ranks typically show mild but not strong correlation to current yr expectations, and rushing is more closely correlated yr over yr.

PAGE 5: Success by Play Type and Personnel Grouping: the first number in the grouping is the number of RBs, the second is the number of TEs. WRs are listed in parenthesis. Thus, 12 = 1 RB, 2 TEs and 2 WRs. Success rate and EPA/play are listed, along with # of plays from that grouping // Receiving Success: each cell shows success rate and targets on the first line, with yards per attempt (YPA) and EPA/target (described above) // Rushing Success: first line is success rate and attempts, second line is YPC and EPA/rush // Other passing metrics below look at QB performance

PAGE 6: Passing yardage consists of air yardage (distance ball travels measured per play from line of scrimmage to target) and yards after catch (YAC, distance receiver travels before he is tackled). YIA (Yards In Air of pass, aka another abbreviation for Air Yardage) // Missed YPA yardage on unsuccessful plays which fell short of required cutoff for the play to have been graded “successful” // YAS yardage above successful, yardage gained in excess of cutoff, and measures explosiveness of player

PAGE 7: Number of DBs vs Personnel: rates of DBs used by the team’s defense when they face various offensive personnel groupings, and the efficiency of those opponent passes based on success rate and EPA/att // Defensive Tendencies show rate and rank of base, nickel and dime vs NFL average, and this table also shows defensive rush and blitz tendencies

PAGE 8: Most metrics are self-explanatory

PAGE 9: Top 63 metrics are numbered to allow for easier call-out in chapter narrative. Metrics 4-13 look only at first half. Metrics 14-21 look at pre-snap motion (PSM) usage and improvement in quarters 1-3 only. Metrics 22-26 look at play action (PA) on early downs in quarters 1-3. Metrics 27-34 study offensive performance and tendency based on number of defenders in the box pre-snap // Fumble Luck: FROE (Fumble Recovery Over Expectation), on offense or defense, and rankings 1-32 // Field Goal luck analyzes own and opposing FG conversion rate vs average // Player Tracking Data: stats are defined below section. 2018 ranks are listed for QBs with enough 2018 attempts to qualify, to use for comparing year to year performance

PAGE 10: Offensive Passing Tendencies: these heat maps show where QBs target their receivers in each situation outlined. Red = heavily targeted, light green = light targeted, white = no targets. This is a vertical view of the football field, with the line of scrimmage at the “0” line of the y-axis, and the QB faces north on the page while looking to pass. Graphics depicting success (in black) show light yellow for most successful targets, green for moderate and dark blue for least successful. Coaches (Prior Yrs) 2020 Forecast Head Coach: Pittsburgh Steelers Wins Div Rank Mike Tomlin (13 yrs) Offensive Coordinator: Randy Fichtner (2 yrs) 9 #2 Defensive Coordinator: Past Records Keith Butler (4 yrs) 2019: 8-8 EASY HARD 2018: 9-7 2017: 13-3 5.500 10.500 PHI BAL DAL BAL TEN CLE BUF IND CLE DEN HOU NYG CIN CIN JAX WAS

A HH A H H A AAH H H A A H A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1718 MNF TKG SNF MNF Key Players Lost 2020 Pittsburgh Steelers Overview Key Free Agents/ Trades Added Player New Between their lack of implementing valuable offensive strategies and simply watching their brand of uninspiring football every Sunday, the Steelers were one of the most Artie Burns (CB) A. Player AAV (MM) Bears frustrating teams to watch in 2019. If it was frustrating watching them as an analyst, I Eric Ebron (TE) $6 A. B.J. Finney (C) Seahaw ks A.cannot imagine how it was to be a fan. Derek Watt (FB) $3.29 A. Javon Hargrave (34DT) Eagles A. And we will get to the bad soon enough. But before we do, let’s take a moment to Stefen Wisniewski (LG) $1.39 A. Nick Vannett (TE) Broncos A.acknowledge how insane it was that the Steelers finished 8-8 and not significantly worse Chris Wormley (34DE) Trade A. Ramon Foster ( G) Retired A.last year. Breon Borders (CB) $0.80 A. Roosevelt Nix (FB) Colts A. This was a team that lost Ben Roethlisberger six quarters into the season. Ryan Shazier ( ILB) Retired A. Drafted Players Sean Davis (S) A.This was a team that sat 0-2 and needed to name a new starter for their Week 3 game. A Redskins Rd Pk Player (College) game on the road against the team that would hold a 10-point fourth quarter lead in the Tyler Matakevich (ILB) Bills A. Super Bowl, the San Francisco 49ers. They dropped that game. WR - Chase Claypool (Notre Ab. 2 49 Anthony Chickillo (34OLB) Saints A. Dame) . Johnny Holton (WR) A.And yet over their final 13 games, of which Mason Rudolph started seven and Duck Null OLB - Alex Highsmith Ab. Hodges started six, neither backup quarterback recorded a losing record. Together, the 102 3 (Charlotte) . Lavon Hooks (34DE) Null A.Steelers produced an 8-5 record over those games. Leterrius Walton (34DE) Null A. RB - Anthony McFarland Jr. Ab. It was a gross season for quarterback play on the Steelers, but even beyond that duo, 124 (Maryland) Mark Barron (ILB) Null A. . this offense had virtually nothing to show. 4 Ab. 135 G - Kevin Dotson (Louisiana) Average # Games # Games • A third-round rookie from Toledo, Diontae Johnson, was their leading receiver. . Line Favored Underdog • A fourth-round rookie from Kentucky, Benny Snell, was eight carries shy of being their Ab. 198 S - Antoine Brooks (Maryland) leading rusher. 6 .

Ab. -2.3 10 5 One would figure with such terrible options at quarterback and in the receiving game, this 232 DT - Carlos Davis (Nebraska) 7 . team would need to rely on rushing touchdowns to score points. (cont'd - see PIT2 )

Regular Season Wins: FS 2020 Unit Spending M.Fitzpatrick Lineup & Cap Hits Past & Current Proj SS 39 T.Edmunds All OFF Forecast LB LB 34 9 V.Williams D.Bush All DEF 2020 Wins 98 55

2019 Wins 8 RCB SLOTCB OLB DE DE OLB LCB S.Nelson M.Hilton B.Dupree C.Heyward S.Tuitt T.Watt J.Haden Positional Spending

20 28 4897 91 90 23 Rank Total 2019 Rk Forecast 9 All OFF 25 $91.56M 23 2019 Wins ______QB 9 $26.93M 6 11 78 61 53 66 71 13 OL 13 $41.64M 11 2018 Wins 9 LWR LT LG C RG RT RWR RB 32 $3.75M 32 D.Johnson 19 A.VillanuevaS.Wisniewski M.Pouncey D.DeCastro M.Feiler 85 J.Washington WR 32 $8.29M 31 SLOTWR TE 16 $10.95M 12 2017 Wins 13 J.Smith-Schuster E.Ebron TE 7 All DEF 5 $107.99M 11

QB DL 12 $39.95M 11 B.Roethlisberger 2016 Wins 11 30 10 82 38 2 2020 Cap Dollars LB 8 $34.74M 8 RB WR2 WR3 RB2 QB2 J.Conner CB 9 $25.07M 15 13 5 7 9 111315 R.SwitzerC.Claypool J.Samuels M.Rudolph 814,516 28M Rookie S 23 $8.22M 28

CLICK HERE to get 350+ page book 3 Sharp Football Analysis . com great offensively (a skill) and made 94% of field g Pittsburgh was also the fourth-best team in field g touchdown, such as a defensive turnover for a touch They also had other things go their way. They were involved in recovery. And the Steelers were the luc a skill, but once that odd-shaped football starts b created 33 fumbles on defense, and recovered 54.5% the Steelers fumbled 30 times on offense, they reco recovered 5.6 fumbles over expectation (FROE), whic First, the Steelers had an incredible amount of luc we’ll dive in there later.) How did they win the turnover battle so often in 20 and sack battle (5-0). Compare to 10 times last yea However, in those prior two years, only five times not winning the turnover battle, sack battle, or bo Compare these numbers to the prior two years, where In 10 games they won both the turnover battle and s • In six games, they didn’t win the turnover battle • Unless the Steelers won the sack battle, they wer • Unless the Steelers won the turnover battle, they But for the Steelers, they were 100% losses if they win the war. They don’t guarantee anything, however Forget everything else that happens in games. When • Scoring a non-offensive TD = 71% wins • Winning the sack battle = 71% wins • Winning the turnover battle = 79% wins There are a few key “singular event” statistics tha …how were the Steelers sitting at 8-5 and in the pla lack of rushing production… Despite the lack of a quarterback, despite the lack scored seven or fewer rushing touchdowns. Among teams to post final records at or above .500 But they only scored a total of seven touchdowns on I- PIT-2 3 -30 ENE 333 1 L 3 A Rank 030 25 20 15 10 5 1 E SEA 09Wel DR&Sao rnigPromne2019 Weekly EDSR & Season Trending Performance 828 26 2-2 H 2 L 929 CLICK HERE toget350+ pagebook FSF 424 20 4-4 A L EDSR Off 3 131 I CIN 727 24 W 4 3 H

30 & In Off 2019 Offensive Advanced Metrics A BAL 232 626 23 3-3 H L 5 Red Zone Off A LAC 727 717 24 W A 6 7 3rd Down Off 626 YPPA Off I MIA 414 27 13 W H 8 626

N IND YPPT Off 424 26 W H 2 9

Offensive 32 ucn ntecre,alto ukgt ouncing on the carpet, a lot of luck gets akbtl,o oh hywn -., sack battle, or both. They went 0-6. h(- atya) th (0-6 last year). ALA 010 212 17 as h teeswr otnt htoals, the Steelers were fortunate that orlt xrml togywt is t correlate extremely strongly with wins: W H a uk hl h ikn ntwsoal luck. While the kicking unit was 5 i h teeswnbt h unvrdid the Steelers win both the turnover .Seiial,fml uk itbrhk. Specifically, fumble luck. Pittsburgh o eevn epn,dsiete of receiving weapons, despite the 9 Tedfnewsiceil,bt19? (The defense was incredible, but wr -. were 0-5.

Efficiency didn’t win these battles. is emi h F nta aaiy kiest team in the NFL in that capacity. -.e 0-5. ln.r alone. ee 3 ftoefmls hyvered 63% of those fumbles. They of hog ek1?yoffs through Week 14? over the past 20 years, only 4% - hnsoigannofnie4-0 when scoring a non-offensive c ate hywn -.ack battle, they went 8-2. tegon l esn the ground all season. ono utkc eun down or a punt/kick return. 030 hyae’ 0%wn., they aren’t 100% wins. L CLE o i hs ate,yuotnyou win these battles, you often a h eti h F.Wieh was the best in the NFL. While 1 -14

Pass the Steelers went 17-10-1 when 121 111 ftoe tipn h alcnb of those. Stripping the ball can be 7 A L Efficiency Off 212 I CIN 010 16 212 W A

6 Pass Pro Efficiency Off L CLE 313 313 20 W 7 H 7 RB Pass Eff Off R ARI 717 23 414 W 6 A Rush 30

U BUF Efficiency Off 515 717 10 7-7 H L Explosive 30 Y NYJ 616 10 616 6-6 A

L Pass Off

Explosive Run 26 A BAL 1 -18 828 10 717 A L Off 4 The Steelers still totaled the ninth-most EPA/att o NFL), the Steelers totaled -112 air yards on 91 com Patriots totaled 167 air yards on 120 completions t bottom-5 in virtually every wide receiver or tight pass game. The Steelers ranked top-10 in virtually Another element that helped win eight games was the season. 27th or worse against the run and won four of the f schedule of opposing run defenses. They played five disadvantage. Another huge element was the fact the This was a big part of how the Steelers finished 8- the NFL. Compare to 2018, where they had the fourth opponents only made 81% of field goals against them

lwgo)(low=good) Red=DEF (high=good) Blue=OFF EDSR OFF/DEF L=Red W=Green EDSRby Wk OPPPTS PTS MARGIN SITE OPP RESULT WEEK Rank u aeRun Rate Run Rate Pass Rate Pass Rate 030 25 20 15 10 uop Rudolph fes Offense 1 ao Mason 5 V AVG V AVG F NFL F NFL I PIT BQB 6 EDSR Def 09RsigPromne2019 Rushing Performance 09PsigPromne2019 Passing Performance 3 09DfnieAvne erc 2019 Defensive Advanced Metrics is: Wins): 1 Score Games Wins (% of Total 1 Score Games Win %: 1 Score Games (<=8 pts) W-L: 13% (#22) FG Games Wins (% of Total Wins): FG Games Win %: FG Games (<=3 pts) W-L: All 2019 Wins: 30 & In Def s w n w r w 3rd Dwn 2nd Dwn 1st Dwn 3rd Dwn 2nd Dwn 1st Dwn 3793.7 52% 52% 47% 54% 44% 48% 46% 75.8 41% 09CoeGm 2019 Close Game . 7.6 4 Red Zone Def 4.3 3.7 5.3 5 #)75% (#7) 6 eod Records 3rd Down Def 8 4 YPPA Def 3 #1 33% (#21) 212 0290.2 45% 40% 48% 42% 41% 60% 58% 92.5 47% . 6.9 . 4.5 3.7 6.6 Sharp Football Analysis. com

5 #2 55% (#12) YPPT Def - 1-2

Defensive 3 3

- 6-5 Efficiency n asmti.Weesteend pass metric. Whereas the hs n these ept h asv aet8 despite the massive talent unn ak ms nteo running backs (most in the v,o afterwn nteetr ive, or half their wins on the entire

Pass every RB-pass metric and ltost B,scn-os.pletions to RBs, second-worst. gmsaanttasrne games against teams ranked

Efficiency Def y faced the fourth-easiest wrtnti h F.-worst net in the NFL. twstefut-etnti . It was the fourth-best net in 09Ciia/ae 2019 Critical/Game- srnt fterrnigbc strength of their running back poetPnlisOpponent Penalties Penalties Penalty Margin Ret TDs Allow Ret TDs Return TD Margin Sacks Allow Sacks Sack Margin FUM Taken INT Taken TO Taken FUM Given INT Given TO Given TO Margin 21% 18% 79% 87.4 36% 82% 1 49% 44% 80.6 33% . 7.2 Pass Pro 4.4 4.1 7.4 eiigSasDeciding Stats Efficieincy Def

RB Pass Eff 3 3 Def cn' e (cont'd - see

Rush YPC Success Rate YPC Success Rate Rating YPA Success Rate Rating YPA Success Rate Efficiency Def

Explosive 8 Pass Def I- PIT-3 1 115 111 +22 4+4 +2 32 54 18 20 38 11 19 30 +8 4 2 4 Explosive Run Def ) AYEASY asBedPass Blend * HARD Lgn Legend v 23 -2.3 = -2.3 Avg = -2.3 1 Y NYG 35-3.5 ee on esrRcr Seven Point Teaser Record gis h pedRcr Against the Spread Record 35-3.5 =Hardest Jump in 2020 schedule from 2019 (aka a muc e on esrRcr Ten Point Teaser Record A 1 i on esrRcr Six Point Teaser Record asDFR asDFBedR uhDFR Rush DEF Ble Rush DEF Rk Pass DEF Blend Rk Pass DEF Rk T sHm aoieATS as Home Favorite 00Frcs 2020 Forecast 2019 Actual Average Opponent 8itbrhS.18Pittsburgh S.. Pittsburgh Ste.. T saHm o ATS as a Home Dog vrUdrRcr Over/Under Record tagtU eodStraight Up Record T wyFvrt ATS Away Favorite vrUdrHm Over/Under Home tagtU oeStraight Up Home T sUdro ATS as Underdog vrUdrAa Over/Under Away tagtU wyStraight Up Away vrg / ieAverage O/U line T sFvrt ATS as Favorite T wyDgATS Away Dog E DEN 030 vrg ieAverage line 6-6 H 6-6 CLICK HERE toget350+ pagebook T oeATS Home 2 T wyATS Away RANK 030 25 20 15 10 metric blends 4 metrics: Pass Efficiency, YPPA, Ex 5 emRcrs&Ted Team Records & Trends O HOU 626 515 5-5 5-5 H 3 Total Efficiency 232 111 E TEN A 3 4 3 DEF Efficiency 00Wel etn ie ws11)2020 Weekly Betting Lines (wks 1-16) 131 9 030 H PHI 2-2 2-2 H

5 Pass Efficiency DEF aefrOfne(v p E ak Ease for Defense Ease for Offense (Avg Opp DEF Rank) 60 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 092019 3313-3 11-5 11-5 3-12 2042.0 05-0.5 - 2-3 1-2 0-7 3-5 3-5 2-0 1-3 3-5 5-3 5-3 4-3 2-5 8-8 8-8 Pittsburgh Steelers 2020 Strength of Schedule In De 828 111 asn Passing L CLE

4-4 YPPA Def H 4-4 6 929 212 082018 2312-3 11-5 10-5 50.1 33-3.3 - 3-0 1-4 3-5 4-4 4-3 1-0 3-4 5-3 4-4 5-3 4-0 4-8 8-8 8-8 9-6 A BAL

. 6.5 Explosive Pass DEF . 6.5 A 7 828 323 Pass Pro Efficieincy DEF 818 072017 3313-3 12-3 11-4 5-10 13-3 44.3 A DAL 58-5.8 . 3.5 - 1-0 3-4 0-7 4-4 7-1 0-1 3-4 5-3 3-5 6-2 1-1 6-8 7-9 . 3.5 A 9 131 929 adrshdl n21) h harder schedule in 2019), Rush Efficiency DEF uhn Rushing 85-8.5 I CIN 85-8.5 00v 09Shdl aine*2020 vs 2019 Schedule Variances* 010 H ak n67Q teps(.% n21.sacks on 687 QB attempts (3.5%) in 2018. sacks on 505 QB attempts (6.3%), as compared to 24 top-10 last season. Last year, the Steelers allowed Adjusted Sack Rate, the Steelers dropped out of the line. And sure enough, based on Adjusted Line Yards left for Denver and I had my concerns about the off blocking & run blocking ranks) every single season. top-10 in offensive line performance (average of pa Munchak as offensive line coach, the Steelers ranke was their offensive line. In the five years with Mi And the final huge element that helped win eight ga • RBs: 13.1 EPA (ninth), 51% success rate (seventh) • TEs: -0.6 EPA (31st), 43% success rate (31st) • WRs: -20.6 EPA (32nd), 42% success rate (32nd) Steelers passing offense: Compare the positional EPA recorded by the 2019 behind-the-line target rate. running back targets despite their conservative, lsv as&Ps uh plosive Pass & Pass Rush; I- PIT-3 232 828 Explosive Rush DEF 65-6.5 A JAX 65-6.5 111 A 929 232 RB Pass Eff DEF 919 A BAL . 2.5 . 2.5 212 H 2 3 Red Zone Blend DEF dR asOFRn asOFBedR uhOFR Rush Rush OFF Rk Pass OFF Blend Rk Pass OFF Rank nd Rk A WAS 95-9.5 010 95-9.5 4 313 H

232 YPPT Def 5 =Easiest Jump in 2020 schedule from 2019 (aka a muc 717 919 U BUF uhBedRush Blend . 2.5 . 2.5 414 A Third Down Conv DEF 828 818 626 I CIN 515 4-4

4-4 OFF Efficiency A v 23 -2.3 = -2.3 Avg = -2.3 cn' e (cont'd - see 929 121 metric blends 3 metrics: Rush Efficiency, Explosiv

N IND Pass Efficiency OFF 616 3-3 H 3-3 eke 828 222 asn Passing

3 32 YPPA Off nieensive sss e mes Bth But he d I- PIT-4 E DEN ad and al(oprdt 09 tail (compared to 2019) Y NYG -3.5 6-6 717 01 31 16 13 12 10 6 5 3 2 11 5 15 14 11 9 7 4 1 8

828 Explosive Pass OFF ) ek1 deWeek 17 Edge Week 16 Edge Week 15 Edge Week 14 Edge Week 13 Edge Week 12 Edge Week 11 Edge Week 10 Edge Week 9 Edge Week 7 Edge Week 6 Edge Week 5 Edge Week 4 Edge Week 3 Edge Week 2 Edge Net Rest Edge Opp More Rest Team More Rest O HOU 727 16 5-5 E TEN

3 Pass Pro Efficiency OFF oeLns(k -6 Home Lines (wks 1-16) odLns(k -6 Road Lines (wks 1-16) (v p F ak (Avg Opp OFF Rank) 00Rs 2020 Rest nlssAnalysis Sharp Football Analysis. com 6 2 H PHI 2-2 Rush Efficiency OFF A BAL 6.5 uhn Rushing 2 1 L CLE

4-4 Explosive Rush OFF 212 A DAL . 3.5 airshdl n22) h easier schedule in 2020); 131 9 1-1 -7 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 85-8.5

I CIN RB Pass Eff OFF 919 15 65-6.5 A JAX 09v21 k2019 v 2018 Rk elhb nt Health by Unit* Bsdo h oko *Based on the work of Red Zone Blend OFF uh&R agt e Rush & RB Targets otalOtiesFootball Outsiders A BAL 2.5 ln kOline Rk ln kDline Rk 08R 2018 Rk 2019 Rk RR WR Rk e kDef Rk BR QB Rk BR RB Rk f kOff Rk BR DB Rk BR LB Rk ER TE Rk 010 828 YPPT Off U BUF . 2.5 F ln kOFF Blend Rk A WAS -9.5 v 44 -4.4 = -4.4 Avg = -4.4 919 18 424 v . 0.2 = Avg = 0.2 Third Down Conv OFF I CIN N IND 4-4 3-3 616 13 17 14 13 25 31 14 11 26 2 5 9 PIT-4 2019 Situational Usage by Player & Position However, we need to consider more than just the team-based stats when evaluating offensive line play. Based on ESPN’s Pass Block Win Rate, the Steelers ranked seventh in the NFL. The metric measures the rate at which linemen can sustain their Usage Rate by Score blocks for 2.5 seconds, and the Steelers o-line did it at a 62% rate on average, ranking seventh. This was actually an improvement over the 2018 Steelers line, Being Large Down Big Blowout which ranked 17th. Looking at PFF grades, the Steelers ranked fifth in pass blocking, Blown Out One Score Lead (9-13) Lead (14+) down from third in 2018, but still solid. (14+) (9-13) We see in these numbers the impact of quarterback play and decision making, and James Conner 9% 9% 67% 3% 12% how much they can control pressure and sack rates. Behind solid o-line play in 2018, Jaylen Samuels 6% 8% 82% 2% 3% Roethlisberger helped the team to the fourth-lowest sack rate. Behind comparable Benny Snell Jr. 4% 9% 69% 5% 14% o-line play based on player tracking and player grades in 2019, Rudolph and Hodges Diontae Johnson 25% 75% led the Steelers to almost double the sack rate as 2018. Vance McDonald 100% RUSH In 2018, the Steelers saw the left side of the line intact for all 16 games (LT Trey Edmunds 9% 86% 5% Alejandro Villanueva, LG Ramon Foster, and C Maurkice Pouncey). RT David Johnny Holton 100% played 14 games but RT played only five games so RT DeCastro Marcus Gilbert Total 6% 8% 72% 3% 10% Matt Feiler filled in for 10 games. James Conner 19% 70% 4% 7% In 2019, the Steelers didn’t have the same health along the left side of the line. While Jaylen Samuels 14% 7% 75% 4% Villanueva played all 16 games, Foster played 14 and Pouncey played 13. On the Benny Snell Jr. 100% right side of the line, DeCastro was healthy for all 16 games, but the real story was Diontae Johnson 10% 16% 69% 4% 2% the surprising Feiler. The undrafted kid out of Bloomsburg University, who had played James Washington 12% 15% 69% 3% 1% RT for the first time in his NFL career in 2018, not only started all 16 games at RT in 2019, he recorded the best overall passing grade of any Steelers lineman. In 2020, Juju Smith-Schuster 15% 13% 72% the o-line continuity takes another hit, with journeyman Stefen Wisniewski taking Vance McDonald 19% 7% 70% 4% over at LG from Ramon Foster who retired. 43% 57%

PASS Trey Edmunds Donte Moncrief 69% 8% 23% So, what about the bad. What did the Steelers do poorly that was frustrating to watch Johnny Holton 25% 75% and to recap after the season? For starters, it’s the lack of play-action. Nick Vannett 10% 10% 80% Play action helps the passing games immensely. On early downs in a game’s first Ryan Switzer 40% 20% 40% three quarters last year, 3,497 passes with play-action totaled 504.1 EPA. But 5,784 Xavier Grimble 100% passes without play-action totaled -67.9 EPA. That’s the single best data point to Total 17% 11% 69% 2% 2% show how valuable it is to offenses. Splits across multiple metrics per play:

With P/A: 8.6 YPA, 55% success, 0.14 EPA, 104 rating Share of Offensive Plays by Type W/O P/A: 6.7 YPA, 51% success, -0.01 EPA, 90.4 rating

Without a starting quarterback, and with an offense that needed (cont'd - see PIT-5 ) Juju Division History: Season Wins & 2020 Projection James Washington Nick Vannett Nick Ryan Switzer Ryan Johnny Holton Johnny Trey Edmunds Trey James Conner James Xavier Grimble Xavier Benny Snell Jr. Snell Benny Donte Moncrief Donte Smith-Schuster Jaylen Samuels Jaylen Diontae Johnson Diontae 14 14 McDonald Vance 12 12 RUSH 36% 21% 34% 1% 0% 7% 0% 10 10 PASS 7% 14% 1% 20% 16% 16% 13% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1%

8 8 ALL 20% 17% 15% 12% 9% 9% 8% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 6 6 Mason Rudolph CompCPOE % by Depth - Early Downs 4 4 100% 2 2

0 0 80% 2016 Wins 2017 Wins 2018 Wins 2019 Wins Forecast 2020 Wins 60% Rank of 2020 Defensive Pass Efficiency Faced by Week 50% 40% A H HA A H A A H 20% H H A H 0%

A H A 0 10 20 30 40 50 Mason Rudolph CompCPOE % by Depth - 3rd Down 31 1426 21 16 17 4 2328 22 4 24 5 28 19 17 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 Rank of 2020 Defensive Rush Efficiency Faced by Week 80% H HAA A H 60% H H 50% A H A H A 40% A A H 20%

7 16 22 10 4 3019 15 28 31 19 24 18 28 20 30 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 0 10 20 30 40 50 CLICK HERE to get 350+ page book 6 Sharp Football Analysis . com Successful Play Rate 2019 Detailed Analytics Summary 0% 100% Success by Play Type & Primary Personnel Groupings

Type 1-1 [3WR] 1-2 [2WR] 2-1 [2WR] 0-0 [5WR] 2-0 [3WR] 2-2 [1WR] 0-1 [4WR] 1-0 [4WR] 0-2 [3WR] 1-3 [1WR] ALL

PASS 41%, -0.12 (424) 38%, -0.17 (77) 30%, -0.77 (10) 25%, -0.65 (16) 50%, -0.31 (2) 100%, 0.17 (2) 40%, 0.19 (5) 50%, 2.30 (4) 0%, -1.12 (1) 40%, -0.14 (541)

RUSH 43%, -0.14 (235) 39%, -0.16 (114) 24%, -0.30 (29) 0%, -2.84 (1) 50%, 0.02 (8) 29%, -0.61 (7) 0%, -0.65 (1) 0%, -4.77 (1) 40%, -0.18 (396)

All 42%, -0.13 (659) 39%, -0.17 (191) 26%, -0.42 (39) 24%, -0.78 (17) 50%, -0.04 (10) 44%, -0.43 (9) 33%, 0.05 (6) 50%, 2.30 (4) 0%, -1.12 (1) 0%, -4.77 (1) 40%, -0.16 (937)

Format Success Rate, EPA (Total # of Plays) Receiving Success by Top-4 Personnel Groupings Rushing Success by Top-4 Personnel Groupings (Min 50 targets) (Min 25 carries)

POS Player 1-1 [3WR] 1-2 [2WR] 2-1 [2WR] 1-0 [4WR] 4 Grp Total 1-1 [3WR] 1-2 [2WR] 2-1 [2WR] 2-2 [1WR] 4 Grp Total Jaylen 50% (46) 33% (6) 67% (3) 0% (1) 48% (56) RB Samuels 5.7, -0.03 4.0, -0.17 4.0, 0.11 2.0, -0.88 5.4, -0.05 Conner 40% (78) 48% (27) 40% (5) 100% (1) 42% (111) James 59% (34) 25% (4) 0% (1) 54% (39) James 3.6, -0.26 4.6, -0.06 2.6, -0.18 1.0, 0.41 3.7, -0.20 Conner 7.1, 0.42 2.8, 0.06 0.0, -0.45 6.4, 0.36 Vance 34% (35) 41% (17) 37% (52) Snell 49% (49) 45% (51) 0% (5) 100% (1) 45% (106) TE McDonald 5.7, -0.12 3.2, -0.20 4.9, -0.15 Benny 3.7, -0.04 4.7, 0.05 -0.6, -0.70 1.0, 0.41 4.0, -0.02 James 51% (63) 44% (9) 0% (1) 100% (1) 50% (74) WR Washington 10.0, 0.16 6.3, 0.10 0.0, -4.76 45.0, 3.96 9.9, 0.14 Samuels 44% (45) 31% (13) 20% (5) 0% (2) 38% (65) Jaylen 3.2, -0.12 2.5, -0.21 1.2, -0.37 -2.0, -1.11 2.7, -0.19 JuJu Smith- 44% (54) 31% (16) 100% (1) 42% (71) Schuster 7.7, -0.11 3.3, -0.29 76.0, 5.99 7.7, -0.07 Whyte Jr 38% (24) 100% (1) 40% (25) Diontae 53% (38) 50% (6) 100% (1) 0% (1) 52% (46) Kerrith 4.9, 0.07 5.0, 0.12 4.9, 0.07 Johnson 6.9, 0.22 10.5, 0.56 4.0, -0.03 9.0, 0.12 7.4, 0.25

Format Line 1: Success Rate (Total # of Plays) Line 2: YPA, EPA Format Line 1: Success Rate (Total # of Plays) Line 2: YPC, EPA Passing by Passing by Throw Types QB Drop Types QB State at Pass Run Types Coverage Route 49% (305) 46% (225) Inside 45% (71) Scheme 47% (321) 3 Step Planted 7.5, 0.09 55% (56) Level 1 6.1, 0.07 7.4, 0.09 Zone 4.0, -0.06 Curl 29% (68) 5.3, 0.04 Shuffling 51% (95) 3.8, -0.38 39% (61) 0/1 Step Power 48% (216) 55% (53) 33% (58) 5.3, -0.07 41% (37) 3.6, -0.13 Zone Out Level 2 7.0, 0.04 5.9, -0.02 5.4, -0.51 Moving 5.3, -0.17 37% (70) Outside 41% (32) 5 Step 38% (50) 8.0, -0.07 Zone 2.6, -0.24 Screen 4.7, -0.19 28% (53) Play Action Level 3 10.4, -0.05 41% (141) Designed 47% (17) 39% (18) M2M 35% (26) Play Action No P/A Lead 6.9, -0.04 Flat Rollout Right 5.3, -0.11 4.1, -0.15 4.2, 0.00 28% (32) 43% (14) 73% (11) Under 3.7, -0.47 5.6, 0.04 Shovel 6.2, 0.33 19% (16) Center 50% (12) 47% (19) 7 Step Stretch Dig 11.5, -0.56 3.3, -0.70 49% (45) 40% (450) 4.9, 0.10 42% (53) Shotgun 6.1, 0.07 6.5, -0.14 Screen 4.6, -0.11 56% (16) 50% (4) 19% (16) 50% (6) Slant Sidearm 2.3, -0.34 Basic Screen 40% (77) 40% (464) Pitch 6.4, 0.16 1.8, -0.46 ALL 5.1, -0.15 6.5, -0.14 2.7, -0.37

PIT-5 to be more balanced and ground-oriented than most out of necessity, one would think this would be the prime opportunity to use more play action.

But in 2019, the Steelers used play-action on the fewest plays in the NFL and the least often of any team.

In unfortunate news for Steelers fans, even with Roethlisberger in 2018, they used play-action least of any team. While most of the league is taking advantage of using more and more play-action for the benefits it provides, the Steelers seem dead set on ignoring it as much as possible. It’s a huge mistake. It doesn’t matter who you have in the backfield or at quarterback – we can measure linebacker movement and say with certainty that play-action influences second-level defenders, opens throwing lanes, and improves passing efficiency. If an offensive coordinator chooses to ignore that or not build an offense to generate success against the defense’s weaknesses, it’s not just an opportunity lost, it’s a shame.

Then, there was the lack of pre-snap motion. The Steelers used pre-snap motion ahead of just 34% of plays in quarters 1-3. That ranked seventh-least in the NFL and well below the 43% average. Pre-snap motion helps a quarterback identify coverage before the snap, to allow him to choose the matchup that will have the best odds of success or manipulate that matchup. It discerns man or zone coverage. And the quarterback can also adjust the play after the motion, a la Tom Brady.

In fact, the five teams that used the most pre-snap motion ahead of passes last year:

KC: Super Bowl champions & AFC No. 2 seed SF: Super Bowl & NFC No. 1 seed TEN: AFC Championship & AFC No. 6 seed BAL: Best regular season record & AFC No. 1 seed NE: AFC No. 3 seed

Pre-snap motion is free and takes no talent. Just run your man laterally and see how the defense adjusts. Take the free information and profit. Just like play-action (which is also free and takes no talent) the Steelers choose to ignore the edge it provides an offense.

Then, there was the predictability. With how tilted the rulebook is to offenses in the modern game, particularly passing offenses, it is rare for a defense to have the upper hand. Sometimes you’ll have a huge talent disparity between offense and defense. But barring that, most often when defenses “win” a play, it’s the result of the offense shooting itself in the foot, whether it’s a failure to execute, breakdown, or miscommunication. (cont'd - see PIT-6 ) CLICK HERE to get 350+ page book 7 Sharp Football Analysis . com Pittsburgh Steelers 2019 Passing Recap & 2020 Outlook Target Postive Distribution Play % With Ben Roethlisberger lost for the season after just six quarters into the 2019 season, the Steelers passing game was compromised and their depth at the quarterback was exposed. With Mason Rudolph and Devlin Hodges pressed 50 into action, the Steelers ranked last in the NFL in success rate through the air (39%). Slightly better than dead last, they 40 did rank 28th in yards per passing play (5.5) and 28th in EPA on the season via their passing offense. The team went from 313 passing yards per game in 2018 down to 186.3 passing yards per game in 2019, the largest single-season 30 decline of passing yardage per game in league history. Rudolph and Hodges turned the ball over 17 times via interceptions compared to 18 touchdown passes. Roethlisberger will be 38 years old and coming off elbow surgery, but 20 has a low bar to clear improving the Steelers’ passing game output in 2020. 10

2019 Standard Passing Table 0 QB Comp Att Comp % Yds YPA TDs INT Sacks Rating Rk -10 Mason Rudolph 176 283 62% 1,765 6.2 13 9 15 82 39 Devlin Hodges 100 160 63% 1,063 6.6 5 8 15 71 45 Mason Rudolph Rating Early Downs NFL Avg 62% 6.9 85.1

2019 Advanced Passing Table 51 115 14 EDSR 20+ Yd 30+ Yd Avg. Air Avg. 20+ Air Success Passing 20+ Yd 30+ Yd 20+ Air QB Pass Pass Yds per YAC per Yd % Success Pass % Pass % Yd % Gains Gains Comp Comp Comp % 90 Mason Rudolph 40% 44% 21 7.0% 11 4.0% 4.4 5.6 9 3% 108 67 Devlin Hodges 38% 41% 11 7.0% 6 4.0% 5.4 5.3 9 6%

NFL Avg 44% 48% 31.1 8.9% 12.6 3.6% 6.1 5.1 14.7 4%

Interception Rates by Down 3rd Down Passing - Short of Sticks Analysis Air Yds vs YAC Avg. Avg. YIA Short of Yards to Go 1st Dwn 2nd Dwn 3rd Dwn 4th Dwn Total Avg Yds Air YAC QB Yds to (of Sticks Short Rk Rk 1 & 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Short Yds % % Go Comp) Rate 3, 4, 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6 - 9 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 3.2% Mason Rudolph 9.2 4.1 -5.1 76% 43 42% 58% 44 10 - 14 3.2% 5.7% 6.7% 0.0% 4.1% 15+ 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 3.4% NFL Avg 9.0 5.9 -3.1 70% 53% 47% Total 2.8% 3.0% 3.6% 0.0% 3.0%

2019 Receiving Recap & 2020 Outlook JuJu Smith-Schuster Diontae Johnson As a byproduct of the quarterback situation, the Steelers’ wide receivers ranked 18th in success Target Distribution Target Distribution rate (49%) and their tight ends ranked 20th (51%). But despite being limited by quarterback play, the Pittsburgh wideouts still ranked ninth in yards per target (8.2) and third-round rookie Diontae 50 Johnson led all NFL rookies with 59 receptions. No player felt the sting of losing Roethlisberger more than JuJu Smith-Schuster. In his first season as the lead receiver for the team, 40 Smith-Schuster missed four games due to injury and finished 78th out of 84 qualifying wide receivers in success rate per target (42%). With Roethlisberger and a young nucleus of Smith-Schuster, Johnson, James Washington plus Eric Ebron, expect more aerial production. 30 % Rk Rk Rk 20 TDs YPA Targ Rating YTS % YTS YAS % YAS Missed YPA Rk YPA Comp % Comp Player*Min 50 Targets Success Success Diontae Johnson 92 64% 7.3 95.0 48% 88 88 114 22 5 10

James Washington 79 56% 9.3 73.5 46% 104 91 37 133 3 air) (in Distance Pass 70 58% 7.7 79.2 42% 123 124 17 125 3 Juju Smith-Schuster 0 Jaylen Samuels 57 82% 5.4 87.5 49% 83 41 120 16 1 Vance McDonald 55 69% 5.0 83.4 40% 127 127 136 9 3 -10 2019 Rushing Recap & 2020 Outlook Yards per Carry by Direction The Pittsburgh passing offense was so anemic in 2019 that it masked the fact their running game was just as bad. Pittsburgh was last in the league in Expected Points Added via their rushing game, 29th in success rate (43%) and 29th in yards per play (3.7 yards). Another area where the 4.4 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.9 3.2 Steelers’ depth chart was exposed a bit was at the running back position. Durability has been an issue for James Conner over the past two seasons with nine games outright due to injury and fewer than 40% of the team snaps in 10 of his 23 games active. With Conner missing time last year, the duo of Jaylen Samuels and Benny Snell totaled 929 yards on 214 touches while Conner produced 715 yards on his 150 touches. Pittsburgh added explosive playmaker Anthony McFarland in the draft this spring to insure and compliment Conner. Directional Run Frequency Rk TDs YPC Rushes YTS % Rk % YTS YAS % Rk % YAS Success % Success Success % Success Early Down Early Down Early Success Rk Success Success Rk Success Player*Min 50 Rushes YPA Missed 8% 12% 19% 30% 11% 12% 8% James Conner 116 4.0 45% 53 52 45 31 46% 44 4

Benny Snell Jr. 108 3.9 49% 36 12 20 66 45% 52 2

Jaylen Samuels 66 2.7 39% 72 65 4 79 41% 68 1

CLICK HERE to get 350+ page book 8 Sharp Football Analysis . com Fantasy Advice, Targets and Analysis

Take the Discount on JuJu Smith-Schuster

Playing just six quarters with Ben Roethlisberger and missing four full games, we came away with more questions about Smith-Schuster’s status as an elite fantasy wide receiver without the presence of Antonio Brown than answers. His per-game output (3.5 receptions for 46.0 yards) was nuked. Coming off of last season’s bitter taste, it is easy to forget Smith-Schuster is still one of the most precocious wideouts in the league even factoring last season’s production. Smith-Schuster does not turn 24-years old until November and is only 683 yards away from having the most receiving yards prior to turning 24 in league history. The emergence of Diontae Johnson also allows Smith-Schuster to keep working primarily through the slot, as his 66.3% slot rate in 2019 was a career-high. As a player that was in the running to be a top-five pick at his position a year ago with one of the most decorated early careers ever at his position, a fourth-round price reduction allows you to take advantage of the disappointment of last season when everything went wrong while offering some insulation should he fail to completely reach 2018 levels of output.

Player to target: Diontae Johnson

While you should explore the discount on Smith-Shuster, Diontae Johnson may be the best value in this offense overall. For as bad as the Pittsburgh offense was in 2019, Johnson was a rose that grew out of the concrete. Johnson led all rookies with 59 receptions (690 yards and five touchdowns) while contributing 12.4 yards per punt return with a touchdown. Per NFL Next Gen Stats, Johnson led all NFL wide receivers in average yards of separation (3.6) per target. With similar universal skill sets that remind of the Antonio Brown, Emmanuel Sanders, and Santonio Holmes receiving corps from seasons past, Johnson can make a significant stride forward with actual quarterback play in 2020.

Ben Roethlisberger is a Strong Late Round QB Target

We still do not know what fantasy life for Roethlisberger looks like without a prime Antonio Brown, but the Steelers have a young pass-catching nucleus filled with upside while the Steelers draw our No. 2 easiest projected passing efficiency schedule for the full season and our third easiest schedule in the same department over the opening four weeks of the season. Finishing as the QB9 or higher in points per game in each of the three prior seasons to 2019, Roethlisberger should not be overlooked as a solid starting option that will come cheaply for those players waiting on the position.

Pittsburgh Steelers Defense: Number of DBs vs Personnel Def Tendencies Surrendered +Success Map Personnel 4 5 6 Grand Total 50 % Rk 19 plays (5%) 231 plays (63%) 116 plays (32%) 366 plays (100%) 1-1 [3WR] Success: 63% Success: 39% Success: 33% Success: 39% 40 EPA: 0.40 EPA: -0.23 EPA: -0.23 EPA: -0.20 Base 29% 11 35 plays (55%) 26 plays (41%) 3 plays (5%) 64 plays (100%) Nickel 51% 19 30 1-2 [2WR] Success: 43% Success: 35% Success: 33% Success: 39% EPA: -0.31 EPA: -0.16 EPA: 0.14 EPA: -0.23 Dime+ 17% 16 28 plays (67%) 14 plays (33%) 42 plays (100%) 20 2-1 [2WR] Success: 68% Success: 43% Success: 60% Rush 3 8% 14 EPA: 0.14 EPA: 0.18 EPA: 0.15 Rush 4 57% 26 1 plays (100%) 1 plays (100%) 10 Success: 0% Success: 0% 2-2 [1WR] Rush 5 33% 2 EPA: -0.49 EPA: -0.49 0 83 plays (18%) 271 plays (57%) 119 plays (25%) 473 plays (100%) Rush 6+ 2% 28 Grand Success: 55% Success: 39% Success: 33% Success: 40% Total 35% 4 EPA: 0.00 EPA: -0.20 EPA: -0.22 EPA: -0.17 Blitz% -10 Defensive Outlook No defense bailed out its offense more than the Steelers in 2019. Despite having the 27th worst starting field position, Pittsburgh finished the season third in points and yards allowed per drive. Much of that was due to a league-high turnover rate that will be unlikely to repeat in 2020. Still, there’s a lot of talent on every level of this defense.

Even after losing Javon Hargrave to the Eagles in free agency, the Steelers have one of the strongest interior lines in the league with Cameron Heyward and Stephon Tuitt, though Tuitt played just six games last season and ended the year on IR. Both have the ability to rush the passer and can kick outside in a four-man front if necessary. Pittsburgh already made a move to add positional depth with a rare intradivision trade that brought Chris Wormley over from the Ravens. Wormley just has one year remaining on his rookie contract, though, but provides added depth for 2020.

T.J. Watt is already one of the league’s best pass rushers. He was second in ESPN’s Pass Rush Win Rate last season and was second in pressure rate, per SIS. The Steelers franchised Bud Dupree after he finally broke out in his fifth season. There’s a question around how committed the Steelers are to Dupree and that might need to be answered given how much Pittsburgh relied on their two edge rushers last season. Dupree played 90% of the defensive snaps and Watt played 86%. There’s little depth of note behind them outside of 2020 third-round pick Alex Highsmith of Charlotte.

Devin Bush was an instant impact starter at off-ball linebacker last season but the Steelers also relied on Mark Barron for nearly 70% of the defensive snaps as an inside linebacker. He wasn’t particularly effective but without Barron on the roster those are still snaps that need to be accounted for and not much was added at the position. Pittsburgh could give a bigger role to Vince Williams, who flashed with limited playing time. His coverage was solid and he was an effective blitzer with a 29% pressure rate on 48 pass rush snaps, per SIS.

Joe Haden and Steven Nelson played as one of the league’s best corner duos last season; both allowed a sub-1.0 Adjusted Yards per coverage snap. Mike Hilton was the weak link as the slot corner, but Cameron Sutton was a star in limited playing time across the secondary. Justin Layne also has promise as a long third-round pick from 2019. This is one area where the Steelers have high-level play and depth. Sixth-round pick Antoine Brooks is listed as a safety, but could profile into a Barron-type role in the NFL.

Like every position expect corner, the Steelers have a good top duo they rely on often with little depth behind the starters. The acquisition of Minkah Fitzpatrick was a season changer for the defense but it also limited what Pittsburgh could use to build depth behind him. 2019 first-round pick Terrell Edmunds bounced around from deep safety to the slot but could use a little more development in coverage.

CLICK HERE to get 350+ page book 9 Sharp Football Analysis . com Shotgun %: 2019 Play Tendencies 2019 Down & Distance Tendencies Pittsburgh Steelers 58% Under All Pass % Total Pass Run Play Shotgun Center 2019 Play Analysis All Pass Rk 22 Down Distance Plays Rate RateSuccess % 42% All Rush % 1st Short (1-3) 7 14% 86% 57% 23% 77% All Rush Rk 11 Dwn Med (4-7) 9 22% 78% 89% 1 Score Pass % 56% 37% AVG 63% 1 Score Pass Rk 22 Long (8-10) 275 45% 55% 44% Short Yardage Intelligence: 2018 1 Score Pass % 66% XL (11+) 14 79% 21% 29% 2018 1 Score Pass Rk 1 2nd Short (1-3) 37 38% 62% 65% Run Rate: 2019 Pass Increase % -10% 2nd and Short Run Dwn Med (4-7) 65 58% 42% 46% Under Pass Increase Rk 31 Shotgun Center Run Run NFL Run Run 1D Run NFL 1 Score Rush % 44% Long (8-10) 88 65% 35% 34% 80% 30% Freq Rk Freq Avg Rate 1D Avg 1 Score Rush Rk 11 XL (11+) 42 67% 33% 21% Up Pass % 43% 88% 2 66% 77% 73% 3rd Short (1-3) 30 53% 47% 43% 68% AVG 23% Up Pass Rk 27 Dwn 49% Up Rush % 57% Med (4-7) 47 85% 15% Pass Rate: 2nd and Short Pass Up Rush Rk 6 Long (8-10) 32 97% 3% 34% Under Down Pass % 67% Shotgun Pass Pass NFL Pass Pass 1D Pass NFL XL (11+) 31 97% 3% 16% Center Down Pass Rk 14 Freq Rk Freq Avg Rate 1D Avg 4th Short (1-3) 4 75% 25% 0% 20% 70% Down Rush % 33% 12% 31 34% 67% 63% Dwn 0% Down Rush Rk 19 Med (4-7) 1 100% 0% 32% AVG 77% Most Frequent Play Offensive Performance w Motion (Pre Snap & Play Action) Play Play Total Play Action (Y/N) Success % Down Distance Type Player Plays Pre- 1st Short (1-3) RUSH James Conner 3 67% Snap No Yes Total Dwn Med (4-7) RUSH Jaylen Samuels 3 67% Motion Long (8-10) RUSH James Conner 56 41% (Y/N) XL (11+) PASS Vance McDonald 3 67% Success: 38% Success: 53% Success: 40% YPA: 6.9, EPA: -0.14 YPA: 6.3, EPA: 0.07 YPA: 6.8, EPA: -0.13 2nd Short (1-3) RUSH James Conner 10 70% No Rtg: 79.4 Rtg: 85.7 Rtg: 80.0 Dwn Med (4-7) RUSH James Conner 9 56% [Att: 301 - Rate: 55.6%] [Att: 30 - Rate: 5.5%] [Att: 331 - Rate: 61.2%] Benny Snell Jr. 9 11% Success: 43% Success: 32% Success: 40% Long (8-10) PASS Diontae Johnson 10 60% YPA: 5.8, EPA: -0.12 YPA: 4.4, EPA: -0.29 YPA: 5.5, EPA: -0.16 XL (11+) PASS James Washington 6 33% Yes Rtg: 71.5 Rtg: 65.7 Rtg: 70.2 3rd Short (1-3) RUSH Benny Snell Jr. 6 83% [Att: 163 - Rate: 30.1%] [Att: 47 - Rate: 8.7%] [Att: 210 - Rate: 38.8%] Dwn Med (4-7) PASS Diontae Johnson 8 63% Success: 40% Success: 40% Success: 40% Long (8-10) PASS Diontae Johnson 5 60% YPA: 6.5, EPA: -0.14 YPA: 5.1, EPA: -0.15 YPA: 6.3, EPA: -0.14 Juju Smith-Schuster 5 40% Total Rtg: 76.6 Rtg: 73.7 Rtg: 76.2 XL (11+) PASS Diontae Johnson 7 29% [Att: 464 - Rate: 85.8%] [Att: 77 - Rate: 14.2%] [Att: 541 - Rate: 100.0%]

2019 Weekly Snap Rates Personnel Groupings Team NFL Succ. Vance Diontae James WasJuju Smith- Jaylen James Johnny Donte Personnel Wk Opp Score McDonald Johnson hington Schuster Samuels Conner Holton Moncrief % Avg % 49 (71%) 25 (36%) 36 (52%) 62 (90%) 23 (33%) 32 (46%) 8 (12%) 62 (90%) 1 NE L 33-3 1-1 [3WR] 70% 60% 42% 2 SEA L 28-26 52 (91%) 27 (47%) 34 (60%) 47 (82%) 22 (39%) 31 (54%) 6 (11%) 18 (32%) 15 (28%) 42 (79%) 49 (92%) 53 (100%) 14 (26%) 36 (68%) 5 (9%) 3 SF L 24-20 1-2 [2WR] 20% 20% 39% 4 CIN W 27-3 37 (63%) 45 (76%) 43 (73%) 27 (46%) 38 (64%) 9 (15%) 3 (5%) BAL L 26-23 37 (62%) 55 (92%) 33 (55%) 55 (92%) 15 (25%) 48 (80%) 20 (33%) 5 2-1 [2WR] 4% 8% 26% 6 LAC W 24-17 39 (65%) 42 (70%) 51 (85%) 30 (50%) 32 (53%) 14 (23%) 8 MIA W 27-14 60 (78%) 34 (44%) 36 (47%) 57 (74%) 64 (83%) 26 (34%) 15 (19%) 9 IND W 26-24 51 (81%) 43 (68%) 27 (43%) 47 (75%) 40 (63%) 22 (35%) Grouping Tendencies 10 LA W 17-12 72 (97%) 53 (72%) 37 (50%) 55 (74%) 41 (55%) 22 (30%) Pass Run Pass 11 CLE L 21-7 71 (96%) 38 (51%) 63 (85%) 22 (30%) 25 (34%) 13 (18%) 44 (59%) Personnel Succ. Succ. Rate 12 CIN W 16-10 63 (85%) 50 (68%) 58 (78%) 22 (30%) 16 (22%) % % 13 CLE W 20-13 54 (87%) 40 (65%) 44 (71%) 34 (55%) 19 (31%) 64% 41% 43% 14 ARI W 23-17 31 (52%) 42 (70%) 43 (72%) 28 (47%) 17 (28%) 1-1 [3WR] 15 BUF L 17-10 44 (75%) 50 (85%) 17 (29%) 34 (58%) 13 (22%) 1-2 [2WR] 40% 38% 39% 16 NYJ L 16-10 65 (97%) 56 (84%) 51 (76%) 53 (79%) 42 (63%) 9 (13%) 7 (10%) 17 BAL L 28-10 44 (88%) 39 (78%) 44 (88%) 37 (74%) 20 (40%) 6 (12%) 2-1 [2WR] 26% 30% 24% Grand Total 703 (77%) 667 (66%) 650 (69%) 582 (77%) 370 (42%) 335 (53%) 272 (26%) 112 (34%)

Red Zone Targets (min 3) Red Zone Rushes (min 3) Early Down Target Rate RB TE WR Receiver All Inside 5 6-10 11-20 Rusher AllAll Inside 5 6-10 11-20 23% 16% 61% 23% 21% 56% Vance McDonald 9 2 3 4 Benny Snell Jr. 22 3 7 12 NFL AVG James Conner 14 5 2 7 Jaylen Samuels 8 1 1 6 Overall Target Success % Jaylen Samuels 11 3 4 4 Diontae Johnson 7 1 6 RB TE WR Devlin Hodges 6 2 3 1 6 1 5 Juju Smith-Schuster Trey Edmunds 4 1 3 50% 43% 42% #8 #31 #32 James Conner 3 3 Kerrith Whyte Jr. 3 1 2

CLICK HERE to get 350+ page book 10 Sharp Football Analysis . com Offensive Efficiency & Tendency Research 01. Games w Halftime Lead 6 02. Avg Halftime Lead -1.0 03. Wins 8

04. 1H Off EDSR (Early Down Success Rate) 31 Pre-Snap Motion (Quarters 1-3) 05. 1H Offensive Efficiency 31 06. 1H 3rd Down Yds to Go 20 36. PSM YPA 6.7 07. 1H 3rd Down Conversions 24 37. PSM Target Depth 6.2 38. Non-PSM YPA 7.2 08. 1H Explosive Play Rate 27 39. Non-PSM Target Depth 8.0 09. 1H Early Down Pass Rate 21 40. PSM Pass Success Rate 49% 10. 1H Early Down Pass Efficiency 27 41. Non-PSM Pass Success Rate 48% 29 11. 1H Early Down Run Efficiency 42. PSM Rating 83.7 12. 1H Red Zone Pass Efficiency 28 43. Non-PSM Rating 84.2 13. 1H Red Zone Rush Efficiency 29 14. PSM Usage Q1-3 12 Play Action (Quarters 1-3 on Early Downs) 15. PSM Passing Usage Q1-3 13 44. PA Usage Rate Q1-3 Early Downs 20% 20 16. PSM Improvement Pass Success Q1-3 45. PA Success Rate 40% 17. PSM Improvement YPA Q1-3 29 46. PA YPA 4.9 18. PSM Improvement Rating Q1-3 26 47. PA Sack Rate 0.0% 19. PSM Rushing Usage Q1-3 Q1-3 14 48. PA Rating 67.5 49. PA Target Depth 4.9 20. PSM Improvement Run Success Q1-3 10 50. Non-PA Success Rate 50% 20 21. PSM Improvement YPC Q1-3 51. Non-PA YPA 6.8 22. PA Usage Q1-3 Early Downs 32 52. Non-PA Sack Rate 5.9% 23. PA Improvement Success 31 53. Non-PA Rating 87.5 24. PA Improvement YPA 32 54. Non-PA Target Depth 6.9 32 25. PA Improvement Rating Men In Box 26. % Of Runs Into 8-Man+ Boxes (1=high) 1 27. Success on runs into 8-man+ boxes 20 55. % of runs into 8-man+ boxes Early Downs Q1-3 Outside 5-yd line 37% 28. % Of Runs Into 7-Man Boxes 28 56. Success on runs into 8-man+ boxes Early Downs Q1-3 Outside 5-yd line 39% 29. Success on runs into 7-man boxes 30 57. YPC on runs into 8-man+ boxes Early Downs Q1-3 Outside 5-yd line 3.4 30. % Of Runs Into 6-Man- Boxes 25 58. % of runs into 7-man boxes Early Downs Q1-3 Outside 5-yd line 39% 31. Success on runs into 6-man- boxes 28 59. Success on runs into 7-man boxes Early Downs Q1-3 Outside 5-yd line 40% 32. Run Rate into 8+ Man Box (1=high) 10 60. YPC on runs into 7-man boxes Early Downs Q1-3 Outside 5-yd line 4.1 33. Run Rate into 7 Man Box 29 61. % of runs into 6-man- boxes Early Downs Q1-3 Outside 5-yd line 24% 34. Run Rate into 6- Man Box 18 62. Success on runs into 6-man- boxes Early Downs Q1-3 Outside 5-yd line 41% 35. Total Defensive Efficiency 3 63. YPC on runs into 6-man- boxes Early Downs Q1-3 Outside 5-yd line 4.3

Fumble Luck (Fumble Recovery Over Expectation) Field Goal Luck

Net FROE Rk 1 33 94% defFUM 2019 FG % YOY Swing 28% Net FROE 5.6 defFUM Rcvrd 18 2019 FG Rk 4 offFUM 30 YOY Swing Rk 2 offFUM Rcvrd 19 defFR Rk 8 Opp 2019 FG % 81% offFR% 63.3% 54.5% 20 defFR% Opp 2019 FG Rk 2018 Team Net -15% offFR Rk 5 defFROE 2.7 2019 Team Net 13% offFROE 2.9 2018 Net Rk 29 offFROE Rk 4 defFROE Rk 5 2019 Net Rk 4 Player Tracking Data Stats - QBs QB Pressure Offensive Metrics

Mason Rud.. Devlin Hod.. EPA/Pass -0.15 Mason Devlin CAY 4.5 4.5 Rudolph Hodges EPA/Pass Rk 29 CAY Rk 38 38 Pressure % 36.4 37.2 EPA/Rush -0.19 2018 CAY Rk Pressure Rk 10 9 AYTS Rk 23 33 EPA/Rush Rk 32 Sack % 13.4 22.1 2018 AYTS Rk On-Target Catch % 82.2 Sack Rk 33 9 AGG Rk 11 39 62.5 63.6 On-Target Catch Rk 29 2018 AGG Rk Under Pressure Accuracy % COMP% 62.2 62.5 Pressure Accuracy Rk 19 18 Drop% 10.2 xCOMP% 63.2 62 Rating when Pressured 35.6 34.4 Drop Rk 28 xCOMP% Rk 25 34 Pressured Rating Rk 36 37 YAC/Att 2.4 2018 xCOMP% Rk Clean Accuracy % 79.1 83 13 CPOE% -1 0.5 YAC/Att Rk Clean Accuracy Rk 18 2 CPOE Rk 21 14 Rush Broken Tackle % 11.4 Rating when Clean 104.7 87.3 2018 CPOE Rk Rush Broken Tackle Rk 31 Clean Rating Rk 14 35 CAY: Completed Air Yards AYTS : Air Yards to the Rush 1st Down % 18.7 Sticks AGG : Aggressiveness xCOMP : Expected Time to Throw 2.8 2.84 completion percentage CPOE : Actual completion 21 13 Rush 1st Down Rk 29 percentage over expectation Time to Throw Rk

CLICK HERE to get 350+ page book 11 Sharp Football Analysis . com Pittsburgh Steelers 2019 Offensive Passing Tendencies

1st Down 2nd Down 3rd Down Under Center Shotgun No Huddle 60 50