> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.statsdigest.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # The Steelers' Hidden 2025 Collapse: Pittsburgh Got to the QB More — and Got Torched Deep - URL: https://www.statsdigest.com/steelers-2025-deep-ball-defense-collapse/ - Published: 2026-08-07T11:47:15.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-07T11:47:14.000Z - Description: Pittsburgh's pass rush improved in 2025, but its deep-ball defense quietly became the third-worst in the NFL. - Author: Bill Seifert - Tags: Steelers, pass defense, EPA, deep passing, NFL defense, 2025 NFL Season At the season level, Pittsburgh's 2025 pass defense looked like a near-photocopy of its 2024 unit by the number that gets quoted most: the Steelers allowed +0.030 pass EPA/play in 2024 and +0.028 in 2025 — 16th in the NFL both years. Same middle-of-the-pack pass defense, right? Not quite. Underneath that flat top-line, one segment of the field completely caved in: the deep third. And it happened while the pass rush actually got *better*. ## Table of Contents - The top-line disguise - The deep ball: a segment-specific collapse - Everywhere else held or improved - The pass rush wasn't the problem - What it means ## The top-line disguise Here are the two Steelers pass defenses side by side at the season level: | Season | Pass EPA/play allowed | Rank | Sack rate | Sack rate rank | | ------ | --------------------- | ---- | --------- | -------------- | | 2024 | +0.030 | 16th | 6.36% | 20th | | 2025 | +0.028 | 16th | 7.21% | 12th | Pittsburgh's sack rate climbed meaningfully — from 20th in the league to 12th — while pass EPA/play allowed barely moved, landing in the same 16th-place slot both years. If you stopped here, you'd say the pass rush got a bit better and the overall pass defense held steady. ## The deep ball: a segment-specific collapse Now bucket every pass thrown against Pittsburgh by air yards. Throws of 20+ air yards — the deep third — are where the entire story lives. | Deep balls (20+ air yards, non-sack) | 2024 | 2025 | | ------------------------------------ | ---------- | ---------- | | Attempts | 54 | 49 | | Completions | 17 | 24 | | Completion % | 31.5% | 49.0% | | Yards allowed | 597 | 800 | | Yards per attempt | 11.06 | 16.33 | | Passing TDs allowed | 2 | 8 | | Interceptions | 5 | 1 | | **EPA/play allowed** | **+0.231** | **+0.979** | On roughly the same volume (54 → 49 attempts), the EPA allowed per deep throw more than *quadrupled*. Completion percentage went from 31.5% — elite — to 49.0%. Deep passing TDs allowed went from 2 to 8\. And the takeaway edge that papered over any deep-ball leaks in 2024 (5 INTs) collapsed to a single pick. The league-wide context sharpens the picture. In 2025, Pittsburgh's +0.979 EPA/play allowed on deep throws was the **third-worst mark in the NFL**, trailing only Minnesota (+1.08) and Dallas (+1.02). That same figure was a modest +0.231 in 2024 — nowhere near the bottom of the league by comparison. Lamar Jackson went 3-of-3 for 140 yards and 2 deep touchdowns against Pittsburgh in Week 18 alone (+13.6 EPA on those three throws). Jared Goff hit 3-of-4 for 62 yards and a score in Week 16 (+5.31 EPA). Carson Wentz threw for 110 deep yards on 2 completions in Week 4 (+5.02 EPA). Shedeur Sanders (+5.9 EPA, Week 17), Caleb Williams (+4.0 EPA, Week 12), Joe Flacco (+4.64 EPA, Week 7) and Sam Darnold (+3.26 EPA, Week 2) each topped +3 EPA on a single deep shot against the Steelers. ## Everywhere else held or improved If this were a scheme-wide breakdown, every depth bucket would look worse. It doesn't: | Bucket (non-sack) | 2024 EPA/play | 2025 EPA/play | 2024 INTs | 2025 INTs | | ----------------------- | ------------- | ------------- | --------- | --------- | | Behind LOS | −0.227 | **−0.313** | 1 | **4** | | Short (0–9 ay) | +0.162 | **+0.051** | 5 | 6 | | Intermediate (10–19 ay) | +0.424 | +0.554 | 6 | 4 | | Deep (20+ ay) | +0.231 | **+0.979** | 5 | **1** | Behind the line of scrimmage, Pittsburgh got *better* and quadrupled its takeaways in that zone (1 → 4 INTs). The short game got better too. The intermediate zone drifted slightly worse but the interception total (6 → 4) barely moved. Only the deep bucket cratered — and only the deep bucket lost its INT edge. This isn't a coverage philosophy that stopped working across the board. It's one specific failure mode: contested deep throws are being completed instead of picked off. ## The pass rush wasn't the problem The standard explanation for a suddenly-porous deep defense is that the rush stopped getting home and quarterbacks had time to let routes develop. That's not what happened here. | Pass rush | 2024 | 2025 | | --------------- | ------ | ------ | | Dropbacks faced | 629 | 666 | | Sacks | 40 | 48 | | Sack rate | 6.36% | 7.21% | | Sack rate rank | 20th | 12th | | QB hits | 103 | 108 | | Hit rate | 16.38% | 16.22% | Pittsburgh took down the quarterback on 7.21% of dropbacks in 2025, up from 6.36% — a jump from 20th to 12th in the NFL sack-rate rankings — while its QB-hit rate stayed essentially flat (16.38% to 16.22%). The Steelers were getting to the passer more often, not less, in the same season they gave up eight deep touchdowns. ## What it means The usual story is that pressure and coverage move together — you either affect the throw or you don't. Pittsburgh's 2025 pass defense complicates that assumption. The rush got home more often and climbed the league sack-rate rankings, the underneath coverage held or improved, and the deep third still doubled-plus in EPA allowed while losing 4 of its 5 interceptions from a year earlier. Two seasons is a small sample and 49 deep attempts is a smaller one. Contested-catch outcomes swing on a handful of 50/50 balls, and going 5-for-5 on those in 2024 vs. 1-for-5 in 2025 could plausibly be partially noise. But the yards-per-attempt jump (11.06 → 16.33) and the 2 → 8 TD swing suggest something more than variance — receivers weren't just winning contested balls, they were running loose.