This article marks the beginning of a series of pieces called “Self-Scout,” where I map the results of the Steelers this past season in a specific category or situation. Today, we begin with a deep dive into their success (or lack thereof) on 1st downs.

1st-down may be the most under-rated situational down in football. Everyone likes to talk about 3rd-down success, because that’s the down where a change of possession often hangs in the balance, or about red-zone downs, because the difference between scoring three and seven points often determines the outcome of games. But a team’s success on 1st-down is often the indicator of whether a drive will succeed or fail.

The goal for an offense on 1st-down plays is to make 40% of the yards necessary to move the sticks. So, on 1st-and-10, that’s 4+ yards. On 1st-and-15, that’s 6+ yards. For defenses, it’s the opposite: hold the offense to a gain of 40% or less. Overall, offenses strive to maintain an efficiency rate of 50% or better. Efficient 1st-down plays allow them to “stay on schedule,” which is coach-speak for maintaining a rhythm that will let them “matriculate the ball down the field,” as the great Vince Lombardi described it. When an offense is inefficient, the yardage-to-gain gets tougher, the playbook shrinks, and defenses get more aggressive. 1st-down success, then, is a great indicator of success in general.

It may not come as a surprise, but the Steelers were not a great 1st-down team this past season. To get a better idea of what “not great” means, let’s dig into the numbers.

1st down-success (overall)

Overall, Pittsburgh gained 2,012 yards on 448 1st-down snaps for an average of 4.49 yards per play. Their opponents gained 2,612 yards on 422 snaps for an average of 6.18 yards per play. The difference — a negative of 1.69 yards per 1st-down snap — was significant, as it routinely put the Steelers in longer to-go situations on 2nd-down than their opponents, and forced them into more challenging play calls on both sides of the football.

1st-down efficiency

Based on the definition provided above, the Steelers were efficient on 198 of their 448 1st-down snaps. That’s an efficiency rate of 44.2%, or about 5.8% lower than the standard goal of 50%. Their opponents were efficient on 224 of their 422 1st-down snaps, for an efficiency rate of 53.0%. Overall, Pittsburgh’s opponents were about 8.8% more efficient on 1st-downs this season.

1st-down runs

The Steelers’ rushing attack was particularly inefficient on 1st-down. Pittsburgh ran the ball 265 times for 939 yards, an average of just 3.5 yards per play. This equated to an efficiency rate of 39.6%. Their opponents, meanwhile, gained 966 yards on 155 runs for an average of 5.0 yards per play. Their 1st-down rushing efficiency rate was 47.2%.

1st-down passes

The Steelers had much better success on 1st-down when they threw the football. They completed 105-of-170 throws (61.7%) for 1,130 yards. Factoring in sacks (13 for -77 yards), they averaged 5.75 yards per pass and were efficient on 50.2% of their pass snaps. Pittsburgh’s opponents threw the ball 221 times on 1st-down, completing 155 (70.1%) for 1,687 yards. They were sacked 6 times for -41 yards, averaged 7.25 yards per pass attempt, and were 50.7% efficient.

Run/Pass ratio

Pittsburgh ran the ball on 60% of its 1st-down snaps, with 265 runs against 183 passes. Their opponents ran the ball 195 times and threw it 227, for a run/pass ratio of 46/54.

Fields vs. Wilson

The results with Justin Fields at quarterback versus Russell Wilson were mixed. The Steelers averaged slightly more 1st-down yards per play under Wilson (4.6 to 4.1) but were slightly more efficient under Fields (44.6% to 44.0%). Pittsburgh was efficient on 27-of-55 1st-down pass plays under Fields (49.0) and 65-of-128 under Wilson (50.7). Running the ball, they were 41.7% efficient under Fields and 39.0% with Wilson. The difference between the two quarterbacks in terms of 1st-down production was negligible.

Explosives

Wilson produced 12 explosive plays (20+ yards) on his 302 snaps for an explosive rate of 3.9%. Fields produced 5 explosives on 146 snaps for a rate 3.4%. Overall, the team had 17 explosive 1st-down plays on 448 snaps for an explosive rate of 3.8%. Defensively, Pittsburgh yielded 14 explosives on 422 snaps for a rate of 3.3%.

Conclusions

1. Offensively, the Steelers were far too conservative on 1st-down. They ran the ball 60% of the time despite an efficiency rate of just 39.6%. They were 10.6% more efficient throwing the football on 1st-down, but did so sparingly. Mike Tomlin said that he favored a conservative approach on offense that minimized risk. The Steelers lived up to his wishes on 1st-downs. Unfortunately, that appears to have been to their detriment.
2. The defense struggled against 1st-down passes, yielding 7.25 yards per attempt, a 70% completion rate, and an efficiency rate of over 50%. The results were particularly bad late in the season. Granted, the competition got tougher, as Pittsburgh faced the likes of Joe Burrow, Patrick Mahomes and Lamar Jackson. But their 1st-down schemes became fairly vanilla, too. Pittsburgh sat in a lot of two-high zone looks and gave opposing quarterbacks time and space to throw the football. Burrow, in particular, feasted on the Steelers. In two games, he completed 29-of-38 1st-down passes for 264 yards. Most of these were short timing routes underneath the zone drops of the defense for six, seven and eight-yard gains that set up easy 2nd-downs.
3. Whatever issues the Steelers had on offense were not related to the quarterback situation. Neither Fields nor Wilson had great 1st down numbers, but the fact there was virtually no disparity in the results when one or the other played suggests the play-calling, and the execution of those plays, was a bigger issue. A similar story existed on defense. The Steelers were predictable on 1st-downs, and opposing offenses made them pay for it, particularly late in the season.
4. Looking ahead to 2025, Pittsburgh must be more willing to mix up their schemes and get more aggressive on both sides of the ball. For a team that claims not to live in its fears, its 1st-down approach was terribly cautious. Good teams take calculated risks. When it comes to 1st-down, the Steelers would be wise to follow suit.

Follow me on Twitter @KTSmithFFSN and check out my “Call Sheet Daily” podcast which airs every Monday-Friday at 10:00 AM all major platforms.