Porters departure troubles Steeler players

[SteelersfaninPhilly]

Why couldn't we just cut Haggans (who's good, but not great), and with the money we save there, resign Porter for the $6 or $7 million he wanted?

Porter is not worth $6 or $7 million.

[tony hipchest]

[QUOTE=SteelerFan87;78336] Harrison? Maybe in terms of skill, where he looks kind of like a mini-Porter, but not in terms of leadership. [QUOTE]

this whole "leadership" deal is a bit overrated (even though porter was undisputably the defensive leader- if not the leader of the whole team)

porter wasnt a leader until he was given the opportunity. since harrison hasnt even been given the opportunity, how can we say hes not a leader.

the whole point is moot now. TOMLIN is the leader. he dont need anyone on the field running his show until they earn it or he appoints them. with tomlin in charge, i dont think the rooney woulda brought him in if they doubted the steelers would have "leadership"

[SteelersWoman]

Who's to say that guy isn't already on the roster?

Who's to say he is? This is the question that worries some people.

You guys need to relax... someone will step in and make some plays. The Steelers have a formula that works.

The Rooney/Steeler "formula" is like a recipe--a recipe means it requires several steps/ingredients/parts--in other words, their formula isn't one dimensional.

While letting go of aging players is one part of that "recipe", so many other ingredients that we as fans are used to having, is being "substituted" right now, that it's unsettling to those that liked the entire old recipe

And just like trying a new recipe, some people go at it with gusto, others are a bit more skeptical and approach with the "I'll see" idea. So there's no right or wrong way of looking at it--it's just our own personality coming into play.

I can't believe as Steelers fans you're not used to losing good players and watching them be replaced by good players.

While that's technically true, I think we all know there'll never be another Jack Lambert, Mean Joe Green, Jack Ham, and a few other greats. Yes--they had people take over in their position, but they can never truly be "replaced". There are just some players that are a one of a kind.

For a lot of us, Joey was that kind of player. And it didn't matter if he didn't come on like a freight train on every single play, it didn't matter if he sacked the QB once or 5 times a game. And while maybe not always spot on, he was still always a threat because the other team just never knew. We didn't expect perfection out of him. We enjoyed the passion and enthusiasm he brought--he not only pumped his team-mates up, he pumped US up lol

So here's to Joey, and to all of us who loved him in black and gold. There'll never be another to (truly) take his place, and I wish you well wherever you end up--just take it easy on us when you play against us, huh?

[BlitzburghRockCity]

When Greg Lloyd left, we had Gildon to step up and be the #1 OLB. When Kirkland and Holmes left, Kendrell Bell and James Farrior stepped up to fill their roles. When Gildon left, Porter became the #1 OLB, but Haggans was a downgrade, IMO. Now that Porter is gone, who's going to step up? Haggans? He was already a downgrade from Gildon. Harrison? Maybe in terms of skill, where he looks kind of like a mini-Porter, but not in terms of leadership. Ever other time a guy has left, his replacement has been just as good. The last one though, Haggans, was a clear downgrade, and from the looks of it, the replacement for Porter will be one too.

Why couldn't we just cut Haggans (who's good, but not great), and with the money we save there, resign Porter for the $6 or $7 million he wanted?

All very good points I was eluding too early as well. While Porter may not be worth 6 or 7 million we would have had the room to sign him. He would have taken less than 6 million per year to stay with us if we'd have atleast tried to offer him a deal instead of kicking him to the curb.

[BBC]

When Greg Lloyd left, we had Gildon to step up and be the #1 OLB. When Kirkland and Holmes left, Kendrell Bell and James Farrior stepped up to fill their roles. When Gildon left, Porter became the #1 OLB, but Haggans was a downgrade, IMO. Now that Porter is gone, who's going to step up? Haggans? He was already a downgrade from Gildon. Harrison? Maybe in terms of skill, where he looks kind of like a mini-Porter, but not in terms of leadership. Ever other time a guy has left, his replacement has been just as good. The last one though, Haggans, was a clear downgrade, and from the looks of it, the replacement for Porter will be one too.

The bold is a quote that should show what significance all of this really holds. We had a down grade after 2003, then went on to go 31-6 and win a Super Bowl in the next two seasons.

Even if this move is a downgrade at the position (which is still uncertain, despite popular belief), it didn't seem to have much effect on the team the last time we made a "downgrade" at the linebacker position.

[steelcurtaingal]

I too was sad to see Porter go, but i knew it would happen. I was also openly sad to see Cowher walk, like the guy or hate him, he was a man of steel. but about the porter leaving theory I think the key focus here must be that they are willing to make themselves better in his absense. and yes football is an emotional sport, has been since god put it on this earth. thats why we love it.

[TEEMONT]

this whole "leadership" deal is a bit overrated (even though porter was undisputably the defensive leader- if not the leader of the whole team)

porter wasnt a leader until he was given the opportunity. since harrison hasnt even been given the opportunity, how can we say hes not a leader.

the whole point is moot now. TOMLIN is the leader. he dont need anyone on the field running his show until they earn it or he appoints them. with tomlin in charge, i dont think the rooney woulda brought him in if they doubted the steelers would have "leadership"

So what you are saying is that everyything that was done with Cowher at the helm, didn't happen. These guys have already "earned" it Tony. I don't see Tomlin wearing a ring.

[big d]

alan faneca has been bitching all year. First about Cowher and now about the release of porter. I think this team is scared of change. I'm not worried about porters departure or cowhers. I think these moves will make this a better team

[BlitzburghRockCity]

View Post
this whole "leadership" deal is a bit overrated (even though porter was undisputably the defensive leader- if not the leader of the whole team)

porter wasnt a leader until he was given the opportunity. since harrison hasnt even been given the opportunity, how can we say hes not a leader.

the whole point is moot now. TOMLIN is the leader. he dont need anyone on the field running his show until they earn it or he appoints them. with tomlin in charge, i dont think the rooney woulda brought him in if they doubted the steelers would have "leadership"

Nobody is disputing Tomlin is the leader. Bill Cowher was the ultimate leader too when he was in charge.

However to think that Tomlin should appoint leaders on the field? No, not in my opinion. You can't force someone to be a leader or "appoint them to be a leader on the field", either you are or you aren't. Hell even the team votes captains for each year, not the coaches. Leadership roles are earned in the locker room, the practice field, the film sessions, and on game day. Players step and be accounted for because and their peers respect that. You don't get appointed into a respectful role, you earn it by your peers.

[BlackGold4vr]

alan faneca has been bitching all year. First about Cowher and now about the release of porter. I think this team is scared of change. I'm not worried about porters departure or cowhers. I think these moves will make this a better team

Remember when Tommy Maddox got hurt a couple years ago and he bitched about having to play with a rookie QB. By the end of the year he was on board with Ben keeping the job! Players are reluctant to change and he is just more outspoken anout it!