PDA

View Full Version : Steelers Offensive line grades out as one of the 5 worse in the league



Real Deal Steel
12-18-2013, 03:17 PM
Per Rotoworld.com. Here's the link:

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/45749/79/good-lines-bad-lines

We don't have to use a first round pick on the O-line, but we need to use at least a 3rd round pick. Especially since we won't be using free agency.

steelchamp204
12-18-2013, 03:43 PM
We have enough pieces, this line has improved drastically over the past 8 weeks in pass protection. They just need to get better run blocking.

We need a healthy line is all.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-18-2013, 05:04 PM
Per Rotoworld.com. Here's the link:

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/45749/79/good-lines-bad-lines

We don't have to use a first round pick on the O-line, but we need to use at least a 3rd round pick. Especially since we won't be using free agency.

dumb

not a single 3rd round pick will improve the line more than the progression of our young players over time.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-18-2013, 05:08 PM
lol the article is written by our former oline coach's son....

Real Deal Steel
12-18-2013, 05:56 PM
dumb

not a single 3rd round pick will improve the line more than the progression of our young players over time.

Dumb..

because there are plenty of examples of 3rd round O-linemen who have came in there first year and contributed greatly.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-18-2013, 06:06 PM
Dumb..

because there are plenty of examples of 3rd round O-linemen who have came in there first year and contributed greatly.

that's not the point

the point is that we have invested time, money, and draft picks into an offensive line that has shown significant improvement over the course of the season with a new coach, implementing a new scheme, while struggling mightily with injuries

we don't NEED to invest a random draft pick in the oline. We need to continue to develop the investments we've made

Dean Denton
12-18-2013, 06:21 PM
that's not the point

the point is that we have invested time, money, and draft picks into an offensive line that has shown significant improvement over the course of the season with a new coach, implementing a new scheme, while struggling mightily with injuries

we don't NEED to invest a random draft pick in the oline. We need to continue to develop the investments we've made

I agree Neil, we have the talent, and you touched on everything that has transpired over the course of these last two seasons. I'd ride with what we have because I think what we have could potentially be the best line in football.

Real Deal Steel
12-18-2013, 06:32 PM
that's not the point

the point is that we have invested time, money, and draft picks into an offensive line that has shown significant improvement over the course of the season with a new coach, implementing a new scheme, while struggling mightily with injuries

we don't NEED to invest a random draft pick in the oline. We need to continue to develop the investments we've made

Well, I guess that's where we differ because I look at Adams (for one example) and I don't see it. Plus...we need the depth anyway. How many years running has our O-line been devastated now and you feel that all of a sudden were going to go through a year without major injuries to that line??? I'm sorry but I feel we should be at the point (after 4 years of major injuries) that we need to start seriously planning for them.

K Train
12-18-2013, 06:57 PM
I still think adams has a bright future with us.

But i do not agree that any of our young players would be better than a 3rd round pick. Sometimes a 3rd round pick can ball out

Real Deal Steel
12-18-2013, 06:59 PM
Go ahead Neil, now go and call K-Train dumb too. :rolleyes:

steelchamp204
12-18-2013, 07:08 PM
I think we have live/die with this group of linemen we have right now. This team can not afford to waste another pick in this years draft on a Olinemen. This team needs

CB/DL/WR/TE/FS/P before any Oline.

K Train
12-18-2013, 07:09 PM
The problem with continuing to develop the picks we have is you get stuck with the trai essexs, tony hills, darnell stapletons, AQ Shipleys of the world most of the time. Sometimes you find a Kraig Urbik, and by that i mean a completely average and oddly overrated player

I do not hate taking an olineman in any round, id much rather just resign pouncey, brown, and velasco though. There would be something there

steelchamp204
12-18-2013, 07:18 PM
The problem with continuing to develop the picks we have is you get stuck with the trai essexs, tony hills, darnell stapletons, AQ Shipleys of the world most of the time. Sometimes you find a Kraig Urbik, and by that i mean a completely average and oddly overrated player

I do not hate taking an olineman in any round, id much rather just resign pouncey, brown, and velasco though. There would be something there

The need to resign Pouncey but not overpay him.

Real Deal Steel
12-18-2013, 07:24 PM
Well, if we'd consider getting using free agency period, that would help in a big way. But we all know that story.

steelchamp204
12-18-2013, 07:33 PM
Well, if we'd consider getting using free agency period, that would help in a big way. But we all know that story.

If you think about it, we are in good shape.

Adams-Has improved this season, he showed a lot when he filled in for Beachum a couple weeks back.

Beachum- Solid

Velasco- Diamond in the ruff signing, he has been solid, just needs to get healthy

Wallace- Has filled in nicely

DD-Stud

Gilbert- Improving but can be a little better

Foster- He plays well, but can improve also. But not a scrub.

Whimper- Shown he can play and be versatile at T and G

Pouncey- Tad bit over rated, but nonetheless, very solid WHEN HEALTHY.

This line is getting valuable reps and just needs time to gel together. They will be fine with another offseason.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-18-2013, 08:18 PM
I still think adams has a bright future with us.

But i do not agree that any of our young players would be better than a 3rd round pick. Sometimes a 3rd round pick can ball out

As of right now, all of our young players are better than an unknown mid round pick... that's not really debatable.

And if we really must reduce everything to, "oh this is a weakness, we must draft"... then their are far far bigger needs.
We don't have a RDE under contract for next year
We don't have a FS under contract for next year
We only have 1 WR with more than 5 NFL receptions under contract for next season

Obviously, we don't have to address everything via the draft... while there is a massive misperception that we don't use free agency (we do), we can address Oline depth THERE, that would be far more beneficial to our young Oline, than adding an inexperienced 22 yr old to the picture.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-18-2013, 08:26 PM
Well, if we'd consider getting using free agency period, that would help in a big way. But we all know that story.

dumb, dumb, dumb

Just this year we signed : Burress, Foote, Allen, Whimper, Garvin, Wilson, Gradkowski, Spaeth, Foster, DJohnson, LSH, Wallace, Mesko, Moorman, Velasco, Dwyer, Sylvester, McBriar

We use free agency the way it should be used, to fill in the depth...

We can use it to fill needs on the oline...

If a oline prospect is available in a round and is a BPA-ish player, sure... no problem... but we do NOT need to draft an oline... it' the youngest position, and the deepest (in terms of youth) on the damn team

NeilPatrickBanana
12-18-2013, 08:31 PM
The problem with continuing to develop the picks we have is you get stuck with the trai essexs, tony hills, darnell stapletons, AQ Shipleys of the world most of the time. Sometimes you find a Kraig Urbik, and by that i mean a completely average and oddly overrated player

I do not hate taking an olineman in any round, id much rather just resign pouncey, brown, and velasco though. There would be something there

the depth to which you are wrong about Kraig Urbik, invalidates almost anything you have to say about Offensive Linemen.... but it is a fine example of your opinion being written in stone early on, and remaining unchanged by what happens on the field

NeilPatrickBanana
12-18-2013, 08:50 PM
... but if Greg Robinson OT was there with our 2nd pick, I'd take him in a heartbeat... lol

Dean Denton
12-18-2013, 10:15 PM
dumb, dumb, dumb

Just this year we signed : Burress, Foote, Allen, Whimper, Garvin, Wilson, Gradkowski, Spaeth, Foster, DJohnson, LSH, Wallace, Mesko, Moorman, Velasco, Dwyer, Sylvester, McBriar

We use free agency the way it should be used, to fill in the depth...

We can use it to fill needs on the oline...

If a oline prospect is available in a round and is a BPA-ish player, sure... no problem... but we do NOT need to draft an oline... it' the youngest position, and the deepest (in terms of youth) on the damn team

This list of FA looks more like the misfit toys nobody wants and we settle for. I think when he said we don't use FA he was saying we never go after a high end FA. Farrior was pretty special though. So was Jerome....can't think of anyone else though...

NeilPatrickBanana
12-18-2013, 10:48 PM
This list of FA looks more like the misfit toys nobody wants and we settle for. I think when he said we don't use FA he was saying we never go after a high end FA. Farrior was pretty special though. So was Jerome....can't think of anyone else though...

going after high end free agents is dumb

45 players dress on Sundays.... and most of them get on the field and contribute. depth is important.

ps jerome wasnt a free agent

Dean Denton
12-18-2013, 10:57 PM
going after high end free agents is dumb

45 players dress on Sundays.... and most of them get on the field and contribute. depth is important.

ps jerome wasnt a free agent
Yeah, did we trade for him? I can't remember. Sometimes high End FA pay off. Moss and Brady did great things. I get depth but sometimes you only need one key position. Farrior was huge for us. Didn't he lead the team in tackles every year he was here? Seahawks lost a couple talented oline men to FA too over the years.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-18-2013, 11:13 PM
Yeah, did we trade for him? I can't remember. Sometimes high End FA pay off. Moss and Brady did great things. I get depth but sometimes you only need one key position. Farrior was huge for us. Didn't he lead the team in tackles every year he was here? Seahawks lost a couple talented oline men to FA too over the years.

yes, we traded for jerome
the pats traded for moss
farrior was huge for us... but he wasn't a big time free agent, neither was ryan clark, or jerricho cotchery, or flozell adams, or antwan randle el and larry foote when they signed back for a 2nd go.... that's why it's a myth that we dont use free agency

we DO use free agency... and we use it the right way... to build depth, like all good teams... the teams going out and signing the top free agents always regret it

Dean Denton
12-18-2013, 11:22 PM
yes, we traded for jerome
the pats traded for moss
farrior was huge for us... but he wasn't a big time free agent, neither was ryan clark, or jerricho cotchery, or flozell adams, or antwan randle el and larry foote when they signed back for a 2nd go.... that's why it's a myth that we dont use free agency

we DO use free agency... and we use it the right way... to build depth, like all good teams... the teams going out and signing the top free agents always regret it

Something tells me The Ravens have no regrets getting Boldin. Or was he a trade too? I thought he was a FA, but if I'm not following the trades I never go back and check. I guess I always thought FA were part of the trade. Meaning you can't get FA without trading something for them unless they have been released.

Real Deal Steel
12-19-2013, 12:58 AM
dumb, dumb, dumb

Just this year we signed : Burress, Foote, Allen, Whimper, Garvin, Wilson, Gradkowski, Spaeth, Foster, DJohnson, LSH, Wallace, Mesko, Moorman, Velasco, Dwyer, Sylvester, McBriar

We use free agency the way it should be used, to fill in the depth...

We can use it to fill needs on the oline...

If a oline prospect is available in a round and is a BPA-ish player, sure... no problem... but we do NOT need to draft an oline... it' the youngest position, and the deepest (in terms of youth) on the damn team

Your soooo stupid NPB,

Those are flotsom signings.

SteelCityKid5
12-19-2013, 01:23 AM
The o-line is rather young...I would like to see them add a veteran in the offseason or resign Velasco and he can be that guy for the oline.. When the Steelers had good/great o-lines they we never THIS young

Black@Gold Forever32
12-19-2013, 02:22 AM
Mike Adams should be starting these last few games so he can continue to improve since the season is over anyway......Gilbert goes down with injury and Whimper replaces him and not Adams....NOW THAT IS DUMB..........

Black@Gold Forever32
12-19-2013, 02:24 AM
If an elite LT prospect falls to the Steelers in the first round then drafting a LT should be considered but its not a priority......Really injuries again have been the major problem for the OL but the run blocking does need major improvement....Rome wasn't built in a day.....

Big T
12-19-2013, 02:34 AM
Your soooo stupid NPB,

Oh the irony.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 08:48 AM
Well, if we'd consider using free agency period, that would help in a big way. But we all know that story.


Your soooo stupid NPB,

Those are flotsom signings.

Maybe you should learn how to use the English language properly

K Train
12-19-2013, 08:59 AM
the depth to which you are wrong about Kraig Urbik, invalidates almost anything you have to say about Offensive Linemen.... but it is a fine example of your opinion being written in stone early on, and remaining unchanged by what happens on the field

lol keep it coming

Meanwhile i sit here wanting the steelers to resign jason worilds, a player who i have loathed from the day we drafted him. Urbik is average, hes never done anything to show otherwise

Hes around a top 30-35 guard, which is really quite average...and theres nothing wrong with that

TarlsQtr
12-19-2013, 09:33 AM
lol keep it coming

Meanwhile i sit here wanting the steelers to resign jason worilds, a player who i have loathed from the day we drafted him. Urbik is average, hes never done anything to show otherwise

Hes around a top 30-35 guard, which is really quite average...and theres nothing wrong with that

Agreed. If we had enough "average" on the OL, we would have been a playoff team the last two years.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 09:59 AM
lol keep it coming

Meanwhile i sit here wanting the steelers to resign jason worilds, a player who i have loathed from the day we drafted him. Urbik is average, hes never done anything to show otherwise

Hes around a top 30-35 guard, which is really quite average...and theres nothing wrong with that

You knew what bringing up Urbik would entail. Lol you asked for it

He's a top 20 Easily

Real Deal Steel
12-19-2013, 10:00 AM
Neil,

I wish your mother would have started using condoms a year before your birth. Heffa went around riding bare back all the time. How's my English now fool. LOL

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 10:05 AM
Neil,

I wish your mother would have started using condoms a year before your birth. Heffa went around riding bare back all the time. How's my English now fool. LOL

Men use condoms. You'd know that if you ever got laid.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 10:26 AM
The larger point here about Ffree Agency is that the Steelers DO use it. They use it to build depth (backups, special teams, etc) They use it to fill holes when they arise (Velasco). They get guys ranging from long term starters like Clark to short term starters like Flozell Adams.

They don't go after premier free agents for 2 reasons.
1. It's stupid
2. They largely always have a well built core roster with pro bowl type contracts eating up cap space.

When you have Ben, Woodley, Timmons, Troy, Heath, Ike all chewing up top dollar cap space... with veterans like Keisel, Brown and Pouncey eating up good mid range contracts (as well as guys now gone who were doing this previously - Hamp, Farrior, Smith, Ward, etc).... you simply don't have the cap space to make big free agent signings... it's one of the results of being a "long term contender"

Saying the Steelers "DON'T" use free agency is:
1. Dumb
2. Wrong
3. Shows a lack of comprehending the big picture

K Train
12-19-2013, 10:33 AM
Its rare that theres a FA that i covet. Bowe was one of them.

Signings like James Farrior and Jeff Hartings are few in between signings like mewelde moore, LSH, Keyaron Fox, DVD, ect....none of those guys are world beaters, but they do have a role.

We lost Chris Hope to the titans, we signed Ryan Clark

Flozell was one of my favorite signings of all time, he was just a 1 year stop gap at RT

TarlsQtr
12-19-2013, 10:48 AM
The larger point here about Ffree Agency is that the Steelers DO use it. They use it to build depth (backups, special teams, etc) They use it to fill holes when they arise (Velasco). They get guys ranging from long term starters like Clark to short term starters like Flozell Adams.

They don't go after premier free agents for 2 reasons.
1. It's stupid
2. They largely always have a well built core roster with pro bowl type contracts eating up cap space.

When you have Ben, Woodley, Timmons, Troy, Heath, Ike all chewing up top dollar cap space... with veterans like Keisel, Brown and Pouncey eating up good mid range contracts (as well as guys now gone who were doing this previously - Hamp, Farrior, Smith, Ward, etc).... you simply don't have the cap space to make big free agent signings... it's one of the results of being a "long term contender"

Saying the Steelers "DON'T" use free agency is:
1. Dumb
2. Wrong
3. Shows a lack of comprehending the big picture

Some wish we were the Deadskins. Their lives are so boring that they can only get excitement from the big "splash" FA signings. Just think, WE could have had Adam Archuleta, old Deion, Haynesworth, Antwann Randle El (again but for more money), Jeremiah Trotter, Jeff George, Dana Stubblefield, etc. Big name FA's are almost always a bad decision cap-wise, because it only takes one Daniel Snyder or Al Davis to drive up the price beyond their value to the team.

And hey, it is not like the Steelers have won anything like Super Bowls with their philosophy...

Real Deal Steel
12-19-2013, 12:23 PM
Men use condoms. You'd know that if you ever got laid.

But your mom was so busy, she always carried her own. But since you were not there in those days, no way for you to know.

Tell you what fool, I'll put you back on ignore. Only because K-Train recommends it. Bye bye loser.

Real Deal Steel
12-19-2013, 12:25 PM
This message is hidden because NeilPatrickBanana is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

Neil, you never looked so good! punto.

steelchamp204
12-19-2013, 12:39 PM
There isn't a thread that goes by anymore that results to personal insults :evilshake:

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 12:49 PM
Some wish we were the Deadskins. Their lives are so boring that they can only get excitement from the big "splash" FA signings. Just think, WE could have had Adam Archuleta, old Deion, Haynesworth, Antwann Randle El (again but for more money), Jeremiah Trotter, Jeff George, Dana Stubblefield, etc. Big name FA's are almost always a bad decision cap-wise, because it only takes one Daniel Snyder or Al Davis to drive up the price beyond their value to the team.

And hey, it is not like the Steelers have won anything like Super Bowls with their philosophy...

exactly. complaining about the myth of "not using free agency", is dumb on every level

TarlsQtr
12-19-2013, 12:51 PM
There isn't a thread that goes by anymore that results to personal insults :evilshake:

Screw you jerk. ;-)

K Train
12-19-2013, 12:52 PM
I do get excited at rumors though, like when the idea of jake long and doom were floated around

steelchamp204
12-19-2013, 12:56 PM
Screw you jerk. ;-)

hahahaha, it's the truth though. O well.

Nolrog
12-19-2013, 01:33 PM
The need to resign Pouncey but not overpay him.

I disagree. They need to resign Velasco and let Pouncey walk.

K Train
12-19-2013, 01:36 PM
They need to have velasco at C and Pouncey at LG and watch the magic happen

Dean Denton
12-19-2013, 01:43 PM
They need to have velasco at C and Pouncey at LG and watch the magic happen

Good idea, hope they do it. But is Velasco even going to be ready to go? I fear he won't be signed because of his injury forcing us to go in another direction. Then we'll be in the same spot we were and the line will be crap for a month resulting in the same thing that happened this year.

WindyCityShaker
12-19-2013, 01:51 PM
we DO use free agency... and we use it the right way... to build depth, like all good teams... the teams going out and signing the top free agents always regret it

Kind of like the bears and Julius Peppers, but at least he was proven at the time. Mike Wallace anyone? Not saying that he can't be a good WR, but really for that money? That Brett Favre guy earned his FA salary right? Now all of the big free agents are backup QB's :lol:

Actually your reference to the Dumerville signing jolted my memory, this would probably be what I would consider a successful free agent signing. Drew Brees and Peyton Manning being probably the best examples, but still it's rare that it benefits a team in the long run.

Dean Denton
12-19-2013, 02:21 PM
So by this, are you guys saying there won't be any big name FA that you would like to get? Am I to believe there are no FA that we could of had over the years that wouldn't have helped us? Really?

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 02:32 PM
So by this, are you guys saying there won't be any big name FA that you would like to get? Am I to believe there are no FA that we could of had over the years that wouldn't have helped us? Really?

there's this thing called a salary cap...

bad team's sign big name/high cost free agents... because they suck and therefor have cap space. They don't have a franchise QB eating up 20 million in cap space, or pro bowl safeties, Lbers, WRs, and TE eating up huge cap.

You want to sign Julius Peppers as a free agent? Fine, but you have to let Troy Polamalu walk at 27 yrs old as a free agent.
You want to sign Steven Jackson as a free agent? Fine, but have to cut Heath Miller.
I could go on, but I hope you get the point...


We don't sign big name free agents... because we draft, develop, and re-sign our own top quality players... there aren't any big name FAs that we CAN sign... because we have our own, homegrown, big name players locked up.

TarlsQtr
12-19-2013, 02:37 PM
So by this, are you guys saying there won't be any big name FA that you would like to get? Am I to believe there are no FA that we could of had over the years that wouldn't have helped us? Really?

Of course there were FAs that could have helped us but the NFL has a salary cap. In order to spend money on one position, you have to take money out of another. Signing high end FAs is more expensive than developing your own players. Look at AB. He was signed a year before free agency at 5 years for about $8 million per year. If they had not signed him, do you think he would be offered significantly more money this off-season? He would get a huge FA contract from someone, probably more than Harvin at slightly less than $13 million. We can use that saved $5 million on other players.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 02:40 PM
Kind of like the bears and Julius Peppers, but at least he was proven at the time. Mike Wallace anyone? Not saying that he can't be a good WR, but really for that money? That Brett Favre guy earned his FA salary right? Now all of the big free agents are backup QB's :lol:

Actually your reference to the Dumerville signing jolted my memory, this would probably be what I would consider a successful free agent signing. Drew Brees and Peyton Manning being probably the best examples, but still it's rare that it benefits a team in the long run.

and the Dummerville contract is kind of misleading. The Broncos ****ed up that situation by not getting the restructure done in time. So he was let go, after Denver paid him a whopping 43 million guaranteed. Baltimore was able to sign him up at a value that represented the remaining salary after he got cut. Basically, they got him for the same contract Baltimore had signed him to, but without the signing bonus money... so they have him at cap hits of like 5 million less than what they should be.

That contract is basically a myth...

Dean Denton
12-19-2013, 03:24 PM
there's this thing called a salary cap...

bad team's sign big name/high cost free agents... because they suck and therefor have cap space. They don't have a franchise QB eating up 20 million in cap space, or pro bowl safeties, Lbers, WRs, and TE eating up huge cap.

You want to sign Julius Peppers as a free agent? Fine, but you have to let Troy Polamalu walk at 27 yrs old as a free agent.
You want to sign Steven Jackson as a free agent? Fine, but have to cut Heath Miller.
I could go on, but I hope you get the point...


We don't sign big name free agents... because we draft, develop, and re-sign our own top quality players... there aren't any big name FAs that we CAN sign... because we have our own, homegrown, big name players locked up.

This development of players we always talk about, are we referring to this three years it takes players to learn Lebeaus system? Because it seems like, and not just defensive players but it seems like we draft players, develop them for three years, they get good, learn the system them we don't resign them and have to start all over again. Just seems like our system is somewhat dated and takes too long to get players up to speed. Good example is Worlids. He's what, in his third year now, playing good ball but not at a level that has us saying, no way we draft a LB and we sign this guy. We lost a DB to the Saints that seems to be having a pretty good year and the way our secondary has played this year we could have used his talents. Seems like we are more of a farming team for other teams. We develop the talent, get them playing at a high level, don't pay them and have to start over. Mike Wallace is kind of another one. So can anyone break down this three year plan we do an explain how this is a good system because are team is sh!t and the players we don't sign that are playing for other teams are gearing up for the playoffs while we are getting ready to miss the playoffs yet again.

TarlsQtr
12-19-2013, 03:45 PM
This development of players we always talk about, are we referring to this three years it takes players to learn Lebeaus system? Because it seems like, and not just defensive players but it seems like we draft players, develop them for three years, they get good, learn the system them we don't resign them and have to start all over again. Just seems like our system is somewhat dated and takes too long to get players up to speed. Good example is Worlids. He's what, in his third year now, playing good ball but not at a level that has us saying, no way we draft a LB and we sign this guy. We lost a DB to the Saints that seems to be having a pretty good year and the way our secondary has played this year we could have used his talents. Seems like we are more of a farming team for other teams. We develop the talent, get them playing at a high level, don't pay them and have to start over. Mike Wallace is kind of another one. So can anyone break down this three year plan we do an explain how this is a good system because are team is sh!t and the players we don't sign that are playing for other teams are gearing up for the playoffs while we are getting ready to miss the playoffs yet again.

Let's look at the relevant (those not in their rookie contract) current D:

Kiesel-developed and resigned
Woodley-developed and resigned
Timmons-developed and resigned
Ike-developed and resigned
Clark-signed as a FA and resigned
Troy-developed and resigned

Unless I forgot someone, the rest are rookie contract guys. We develop and resign our guys all the time. In fact, it is the Steeler's modus operandi (rookie contract guys are cheaper). Unfortunately, you cannot keep everyone at the end of that first contract. The problem is not that we let too many of those guys go but that it is a very difficult task to determine which ones to keep/go. Some of those we resign bust and some we let go do well. What then happens is that we often get people making two completely incoherent arguments at the same time. They are "We hold on to veterans too long" and "We always let the young guys go." Both arguments have the benefit of hindsight which the front office does not have when they make decisions.

As a final note, I sometimes think we hold back the younger guys on purpose to minimize the value of their second contract. If Heyward had been playing this well for three years, we could never afford him.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 04:11 PM
This development of players we always talk about, are we referring to this three years it takes players to learn Lebeaus system? Because it seems like, and not just defensive players but it seems like we draft players, develop them for three years, they get good, learn the system them we don't resign them and have to start all over again. Just seems like our system is somewhat dated and takes too long to get players up to speed. Good example is Worlids. He's what, in his third year now, playing good ball but not at a level that has us saying, no way we draft a LB and we sign this guy. We lost a DB to the Saints that seems to be having a pretty good year and the way our secondary has played this year we could have used his talents. Seems like we are more of a farming team for other teams. We develop the talent, get them playing at a high level, don't pay them and have to start over. Mike Wallace is kind of another one. So can anyone break down this three year plan we do an explain how this is a good system because are team is sh!t and the players we don't sign that are playing for other teams are gearing up for the playoffs while we are getting ready to miss the playoffs yet again.


Let's look at the relevant (those not in their rookie contract) current D:

Kiesel-developed and resigned
Woodley-developed and resigned
Timmons-developed and resigned
Ike-developed and resigned
Clark-signed as a FA and resigned
Troy-developed and resigned

Unless I forgot someone, the rest are rookie contract guys. We develop and resign our guys all the time. In fact, it is the Steeler's modus operandi (rookie contract guys are cheaper). Unfortunately, you cannot keep everyone at the end of that first contract. The problem is not that we let too many of those guys go but that it is a very difficult task to determine which ones to keep/go. Some of those we resign bust and some we let go do well. What then happens is that we often get people making two completely incoherent arguments at the same time. They are "We hold on to veterans too long" and "We always let the young guys go." Both arguments have the benefit of hindsight which the front office does not have when they make decisions.

As a final note, I sometimes think we hold back the younger guys on purpose to minimize the value of their second contract. If Heyward had been playing this well for three years, we could never afford him.

Tarls pretty much covered it.

Dean Denton
12-19-2013, 04:13 PM
Let's look at the relevant (those not in their rookie contract) current D:

Kiesel-developed and resigned
Woodley-developed and resigned
Timmons-developed and resigned
Ike-developed and resigned
Clark-signed as a FA and resigned
Troy-developed and resigned

Unless I forgot someone, the rest are rookie contract guys. We develop and resign our guys all the time. In fact, it is the Steeler's modus operandi (rookie contract guys are cheaper). Unfortunately, you cannot keep everyone at the end of that first contract. The problem is not that we let too many of those guys go but that it is a very difficult task to determine which ones to keep/go. Some of those we resign bust and some we let go do well. What then happens is that we often get people making two completely incoherent arguments at the same time. They are "We hold on to veterans too long" and "We always let the young guys go." Both arguments have the benefit of hindsight which the front office does not have when they make decisions.

As a final note, I sometimes think we hold back the younger guys on purpose to minimize the value of their second contract. If Heyward had been playing this well for three years, we could never afford him.

So is this three year development based more around our defense and how long it takes players to learn Lebeaus system or you think it's just more about us holding them back to keep their value from going up? Because if its the latter, that would seem to hurt us because it seems more beneficial to play players that can contribute and get us wins vs not allowing their value to exceed our payroll.

K Train
12-19-2013, 04:26 PM
We really are just in an awkward transition period from the old guys to the young guys, especially on defense. We were in this awkward stage on offense when ben got here and the first superbowl...old guys like hartings, marvel, ward, tuman, kreider, faneca were in there but they were quickly moving them out over the enxt few years. The defense is doing the SAME thing now (back then the defense of ike, troy, smith, keisel, woodley, farrior, harrison as a backup, was relatively young) and the older guys (porter, townsend, haggans) didnt stick around very long.

Now we are transitioning away from those guys (all of whom were young or rookies back in 05-07) to the new wave of defense...heyward, woods, cortez, shamarko, worilds (amazing that i can say that)

Just an awkward phase, the defense wont be permanently bad

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 04:26 PM
So is this three year development based more around our defense and how long it takes players to learn Lebeaus system or you think it's just more about us holding them back to keep their value from going up? Because if its the latter, that would seem to hurt us because it seems more beneficial to play players that can contribute and get us wins vs not allowing their value to exceed our payroll.

it's both... and you know, the players themselves also have something to do with it.

TarlsQtr
12-19-2013, 04:29 PM
So is this three year development based more around our defense and how long it takes players to learn Lebeaus system or you think it's just more about us holding them back to keep their value from going up? Because if its the latter, that would seem to hurt us because it seems more beneficial to play players that can contribute and get us wins vs not allowing their value to exceed our payroll.

If I am right, and this is purely speculation, it is the result of a cost-benefit analysis.

If a player is leaps and bounds better than the older player in front, sure they will play him. Winning comes first.

However, if you have a veteran in front of a young player who is in the same ballpark talent wise, why not play the veteran more, season the kid, and then get his second contract at a rebate instead of market rate? Again, just a theory that may be BS.

Dean Denton
12-19-2013, 04:34 PM
If I am right, and this is purely speculation, it is the result of a cost-benefit analysis.

If a player is leaps and bounds better than the older player in front, sure they will play him. Winning comes first.

However, if you have a veteran in front of a young player who is in the same ballpark talent wise, why not play the veteran more, season the kid, and then get his second contract at a rebate instead of market rate? Again, just a theory that may be BS.

No that makes sense. I can see using the vet if their talent is about the same so you don't have to pay out or over pay for the talent you develop. So does any of this change if we move on from Lebeau? Is he the reason for the amount of time it takes in our talent development or is it a system we already use that he's been asked to implement?

WindyCityShaker
12-19-2013, 04:35 PM
If I am right, and this is purely speculation, it is the result of a cost-benefit analysis.

If a player is leaps and bounds better than the older player in front, sure they will play him. Winning comes first.

However, if you have a veteran in front of a young player who is in the same ballpark talent wise, why not play the veteran more, season the kid, and then get his second contract at a rebate instead of market rate? Again, just a theory that may be BS.

I think that theory is more right than wrong myself.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 04:35 PM
If I am right, and this is purely speculation, it is the result of a cost-benefit analysis.

If a player is leaps and bounds better than the older player in front, sure they will play him. Winning comes first.

However, if you have a veteran in front of a young player who is in the same ballpark talent wise, why not play the veteran more, season the kid, and then get his second contract at a rebate instead of market rate? Again, just a theory that may be BS.

As usual I agree with myself

TarlsQtr
12-19-2013, 04:51 PM
No that makes sense. I can see using the vet if their talent is about the same so you don't have to pay out or over pay for the talent you develop. So does any of this change if we move on from Lebeau? Is he the reason for the amount of time it takes in our talent development or is it a system we already use that he's been asked to implement?

First, I believe that the "we do not let rookies play" thing is overblown. Don't get me wrong, there is truth to it but you have to look at the issue on the macro level. A lot of the teams that have rookies come in and make a major impact are bad teams who A) drafted high and got the best talent, and B) did not have quality veterans in front of the player which is the result of being bad.

Then look at the Steelers, who have been to three SBs the last 8 or so years. We draft at the end of the rounds (31 is a far different player than 6) and had a SB quality defense. Were we going to take Harrison off the field for Worilds? Aaron Smith or Kiesel for Heyward and Hood?

Yes, DLB's scheme is difficult to master. Troy was a special talent (and 10X smarter than most of the guys in the NFL) but hardly played his rookie year. That is a huge factor as well.

TarlsQtr
12-19-2013, 04:53 PM
As usual I agree with myself

You need to stage a fight with yourself to get certain posters off your tracks with all of these accounts.

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 04:55 PM
You need to stage a fight with yourself to get certain posters off your tracks with all of these accounts.

you're dumb

TarlsQtr
12-19-2013, 04:57 PM
you're dumb

No, Your dumb!

Actually, I think we had a knockout drag down fight about a year ago. I do not remember what about though. ;-)

NeilPatrickBanana
12-19-2013, 06:10 PM
No, Your dumb!

Actually, I think we had a knockout drag down fight about a year ago. I do not remember what about though. ;-)

i wish I could recall, I bet it was awesome

huntem
12-20-2013, 01:10 AM
lol keep it coming

Meanwhile i sit here wanting the steelers to resign jason worilds, a player who i have loathed from the day we drafted him. Urbik is average, hes never done anything to show otherwise

Hes around a top 30-35 guard, which is really quite average...and theres nothing wrong with that

I kinda wish the Steelers gave some of their draft picks more of a chance. There are some decent but not great lineman in the league that the steelers have drafted but still cut like Urbik and Tony Hills and Chris Scott. Those guys are def not all pro but this team could use some depth on the o-line

huntem
12-20-2013, 01:15 AM
And while we're on the subject. Alameda Ta'Amu has done okay for the cardinals. Im not in that locker room but thats probably the reason they kept fangupo instead of ta'amu

steelchamp204
12-20-2013, 08:46 AM
Ta'Amu would have been a monster in our defense.