At the heart of Pittsburgh’s 19-17 loss to the Cincinnati Bengals in the regular season finale on Saturday night was the inefficiency of their offense. This article will break down the efficiency numbers for that unit, and in doing so will show that its struggles are a product of two things: poor execution, and a lack of imagination.

To begin, let’s define efficiency. Offenses use efficiency numbers to chart how well certain plays or concepts are working. Efficient plays are ones that keep an offense on schedule. This means they aren’t falling into long yards-to-go situations, where the playbook gets thinner and conversions become difficult. Obviously, you’d like to lean into your most efficient plays and steer clear of your least efficient ones. That takes self-awareness. A good offense knows how to self-scout and can makes adjustments for its inefficiencies.

While efficiency standards vary, a typical chart defines them as follows:

A 1st-and-10 play is efficient if it gains four yards or more. A 2nd-down play is efficient if it gains at least half of the yardage necessary to pick up a 1st down or a touchdown. And a 3rd or 4th-down play is efficient if it converts. Ideally, a team would like to be efficient on at least 60% of its run plays and 50% of its passing plays (running the football, by virtue of its decreased risk, tends to be more efficient, albeit less explosive, than throwing it).

Using those metrics, here’s how the Steelers fared against the Bengals:

Run Plays: 23

Efficient run plays: 11

Run efficiency:  47.8%

This was not a particularly efficient run game for the Steelers. However, when you look inside the run-game numbers, and break things down by play type, you find something interesting. Take a look:

Inside Zone Runs: 7/10 efficient (70%)

Toss-Stretch Runs: 0/4 (0%)

Outside Zone Runs: 1/3 (33%)

Power: 1/1 (100%)

Toss-Counter: 0/1 (0%)

QB Sneaks and Scrambles: 2/4 (50%)

The Steelers had good success running their inside zone play. They were efficient on seven of ten inside zone runs. Their perimeter runs, however, were terrible. They were efficient on just one of seven outside zone and toss-stretch plays. Why Arthur Smith continues to run the toss-stretch concept is baffling. My colleague Jason Murphy and I did a deep dive on toss-stretch a few weeks ago, and found it to be one of the least efficient run concepts the Steelers employ. And yet they keep running it. Against Cincinnati, they called it four times for minus-three yards.

The Steelers have run a ton of the toss stretch play this season, without much success. Why are they struggling with it? Check out my latest breakdown below. And look for my colleague Jason Murphy’s article on the subject tomorrow on SCN. @JasMur3626 @SteelCNetwork pic.twitter.com/0zMZuaVIW5

— Kevin Smith (@KTSmithFFSN) December 17, 2024

We knew from Smith’s time as the play-caller in Atlanta that he favored the zone run scheme. But he has practically eliminated the gap and trap concepts that have been good to the Steelers over the years. Pittsburgh pulled a lineman on exactly one run Saturday night. It was on Najee Harris’s touchdown early in the second quarter, where they ran a version of Power with Isaac Seumalo leading Harris into the end zone.

Gap schemes are physical by nature. They allow for linemen to get good angles on defenders and block down aggressively. For a team that wants to have a smash-mouth identity not to include any gap runs in its arsenal is baffling. Pulling may not be the strength of this offensive line, but reach blocking, which is required on stretch and wide zone schemes, certainly isn’t, either.

It gets worse when we examine the passing game:

Pass Plays: 35

Efficient Pass Plays: 12

Pass Play Efficiency: 34.2%

The inefficiency of the passing game can be attributed to two things: poor execution, and poor design.

From an execution standpoint, let’s start with the drops. George Pickens had three of them, two of which would have created big plays. And Pat Freiermuth’s drop on Pittsburgh’s final offensive play ended the game. I’m not sure the Steelers would have had enough time to line up and spike the ball had Freiermuth caught it and run for a few more yards. It would have been close. But it would have given Chris Boswell an opportunity to kick a 58 or 60-yard field goal to win the game. The odds of converting such a kick in the weather conditions on Saturday night weren’t great. But Boswell has been Pittsburgh’s best offensive player this season. I would have liked to see him try.

The other execution issue involved sacks. Some of these were on the line, such as Dan Moore getting beaten repeatedly by Trey Hendrickson. Some were on Wilson, though. Twice, Wilson ran himself into sacks by not properly identifying coverage, or where he should go with the football. I did a Twitter breakdown on Wilson’s struggles in this area, which you can access below. The contrast between Wilson, who looked skittish and uncertain in the pocket, and his counterpart Joe Burrow, who looked for much of the night like he was taking practice reps against the scout team defense, was stark.

The Steelers once again head to the playoffs with questions at the quarterback position. Check out my breakdown of Russell Wilson’s struggles against the Bengals ⬇️@SteelCNetwork pic.twitter.com/0QYMHS1v3r

— Kevin Smith (@KTSmithFFSN) January 5, 2025

Smith’s design in the passing game was problematic, too. There wasn’t one single boot pass or rollout called. Play-action was called minimally. The Steelers refused to attack the middle of the field, other than to check the ball down, and they didn’t throw one screen pass, even with Hendrickson screaming off the edge. Why so bland? Why ask Wilson to throw so many drop-backs from the pocket, which has never been his strength?

Two other factors stood out as I watched the game film. One was the predictability of the play calls when the Steelers got under center. Wilson was under center for nineteen snaps, sixteen of which were runs. Of those runs, only six were efficient. On passes, none were efficient. Six-for-nineteen efficiency from under center. Sixteen runs in nineteen snaps. Why do it if you’re going to be this predictable, and this inefficient?

The other thing that jumped out was the absence of Justin Fields. Fields is healthy, as far as I know. On a night where the Steelers produced just one play of 20+ yards from scrimmage, wouldn’t a player with Fields’s explosiveness be valuable? Wouldn’t it be worth putting him in for a few plays, especially given Wilson’s struggles, to see if he can create a spark? I have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes there, but on the surface, Fields’s lack of involvement in the offense, especially as the unit’s efficiency craters, is shocking.

For a unit that looked so promising at mid-season, the collapse of the offense has been disappointing. Poor execution and a lack of imagination are the primary culprits for its demise.

Follow me on Twitter @KTSmithFFSN. And tune into my new show, “The Call Sheet Daily,” every Monday-Friday wherever you get your podcasts.