2011 NFL Draft Analysis: Could The Cameron Heyward Selection Facilitate More Regular Deployment of 2-4-5 Base Defense By The Steelers In The Future?

when i read about Muhammed Wilkerson, but yeah, Heyward would likely fit the bill. And Hood seems up to the task also, or hampton and somebody on downs that could be run or pass, maybe?

sorry for more posts, but isn’t the 2-4-5 just our normal nickel package?

The Steelers were either lucky or smart to get both Worilds and Sylvester last year. Worilds should be able to help Heyward/ Ziggy get pressure while Sylvester can cover short routes. Tomlin must have hated the dilemma of taking Farrior or Timmons off the field. As our new guys I mentioned develop, the 2-4-5 sounds excellent. EXCEPT for the 5 who may not be NFL caliber DBs!

My draft guides and research says Heyward is not much of a pass rusher. Has some sack stats, but says he is not consistent in his effort, and does not have creative pass rush moves. I am skeptical of the pick

I think part of the decision has to do with the fact that 3-4 ends are just more valuable. Half the league is running the 3-4 which I don’t think was the case when Smith and Keisel were drafted, although I haven’t done any research. Now we have a bunch of other teams that also need to fill that spot on their roster, and obviously when there is more demand for something it’s value goes up

how Heyward will do at corner? Maybe nobody will try to pass against us this year.

Around the time they drafted Kiesel there were fewer than 5 teams that ran a 3-4. It’s part of the reason that the Steelers were able to consistently put such a strong defense on the field while drafting so late. 3-4 ends were seen as DT / DE tweeners that didn’t really fit either position. Not strong enough to play the middle and not quick enough to generate a pass rush. By the same token outside linebackers for a 3-4 were undersized defensive ends who weren’t quick enough to play eiither the Will or Mike positions in the 4-3. Since so few teams wanted these players that “didn’t fit” you could get higher quality players with later round draft picks.

1. With five defensive backs on the field, we need good d-backs, which we are lacking.

Obviously true. I’m not trying to contend that the scheme switch will instantly solve our passing woes – one of the reasons it worked so well for the Packers is because their dbacks are superb. I can fully understand the point about wanting a defensive back. That isn’t really what the thread is about, but for the sake of argument, it’s highly unlikely a defensive back was the best player available there in any way, especially when you consider that Derek Sherrod was still on the board and we even passed over him in favor of Mr. Heyward. Do we need to address the problem? Yes – or the front office better be ready to take some crap if Lewis and Butler don’t step up next year.

2. The Heyward pick is more about the need to grab 3-4 talent earlier because of the spread of the scheme than a switch to a 2-4-5

Another logical argument, and drafting 3-4 talent is more difficult nowadays. I didn’t mean to imply that Heyward was drafted only because the Steelers are switching schemes. The nickel was being run far more without Heyward anyway. Part of the reason is because of the increased of the spread. Another part was a need to get Casey Hampton off the field. Maybe a year or two down the line, when Heyward develops into a starter to replace the aging Diesel, we could see even more of this scheme, and having Heyward there next to Ziggy, it could be very productive for us. (Provided we improve that defensive back core. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter what scheme we run, we’ll get burned by anyone with a decent QB.