We must not have wanted Grant.

It's okay to just come out and say it.

We neglected it. We worried about the lines and then after we were done, we decided to turn to cheap players for the secondary.

 

Ask the Steelers how far it's been getting them lately.

 

Is it me or does Pittsburgh just need a new man at the helm?

 

Sometimes I think so. You can do a lot with that philosophy, but after the seven year mark, sometimes you're just pushing your luck. Complacency.

I mean on paper they've had a killer front seven for a couple years now, have a great scheme, hard to stop, not in a lot of cap trouble. Have a very solid QB, a good running game, good receivers, and they're always on the fringe.

 

Fox's 92 Defense

Peppers
Burton----Fields
Buckner-------------Manning
Jenkins----Morgan
Rucker---------------Minter
Wallace----Witherspoon

 

>> But you can refrain from the 'sky is falling' bullshit unless you yourself have something of a solution. You liking something you don't understand doesn't make it a good thing for anyone else.

and your disliking something you don't understand doesn't cause me alarm or surprise. between the two, I'll go with the blind faith crowd.

>> but certainly, a heavy investment into the secondary was not made.

i guess if you are going to equate not having made a heavy investment with ignoring a position then you may have a point. i don't equate it that way. i see them using 3 of our first eight picks over their first 2 years on DBs. i suspect we will see at least one of our first three picks this year on a DB. that's pretty much using more of our high picks to try to address the DBs than any other position. our third round picks have been pretty good for us so i don't see it as sheer luck that Manning worked out. i do see them shedding 2 starters and a nickle from the team. that tells me that they want better ... which I'd think would thrill you knowing how much importance you put on the position.

>> Was guard the weakest?

Like I've said before our depth on the line was perilous, particularly at center. I know you don't put much stock in backups but yes I can see not having anything remotely decent as a backup as being more critical than upgrading a position with somewhat marginal starters and backups. Based on what I saw, Nelson turned out to be the only decent backup we had on the line.

Just because they picked Nelson before they picked Manning doesn't mean that they placed higher priority on guard. CB coulda been the higher priority but they felt good about Manning and that they could get him where did.

>> Corner needed two. We've signed one. Safety needs one. We've signed none. Which of the holes were weakest?

we've lost 3 starting OL with a second-year rook as our only viable replacement. you take a guess.

>> That's just silly. No backup - who isn't even situational, since both our ends can play the run and the pass - is as important as a starter in this league.[/QUOTE]

No, even a simpleton could follow the logic. You keep players who perform well and shed players that don't. Wallace performed extremely well with virtually no dropoff from 2 of the best DEs in the game. To not understand that he is extremely valuable to the team is pitiful. He leaves and there is a big dropoff in our DL play that we can't replace for remotely similar dollars. That you grossly overvalue Grant makes it understandable that you're having trouble with the reasoning.

 

>> 1. Just disagree. Glad [WW]'s here, as he's cheaper than Navies, but disagree on what was the bigger hole.

I was thinking that our LBs were in horrible shape when Fox got here. Dan was being played out of position ... besides us getting into his injury concerns. Naives also had major injury concerns and apparently was not as good as I had thought. Towns, though he's a nice guy, was a very poor MLB. Behind that trio was vomit. When Dan went down, we were worse than awful at the position. CB was probably as big a hole but if you can't stop the run you don't have a chance, and we couldn't. At least with suspect CBs you still have a chance ... as we proved last year. Prioritywise, I think it obvious that LB was the bigger need.

Just wondering what our LB situation woulda been like last year without WW.

2. Wallace is a backup ... but situations like Wallace are rare and should be treated as such.

As long as your stuck on the term "backup" I don't think you'll ever have a chance to see the light. Wallace doesn't see himself that way, nor does Fox, nor should you. I tend to agree with you that Wallace is an invaluable rarity and should be treated as such.

3. Corner was the greater need [than LT] IMO. Gross is a fine player at a position of need. But the pattern holds, needs up front get fed, while our pass D remains our rush.

Then I guess your logical conclusion is that we woulda won the SB had we drafted Trufant rather than Gross. We disagree. Gross protected Jake like no one we have ever had. Not only did I not have to look at Peete or Weinke all season but Gross's protection helped to open up our passing game, not to say anything of what he did in the running game. The pattern? We draft an OL and at a position that predraft the majority on this board was saying was our biggest need and there's suddenly a pattern?

>> 4. They lost 2 starters and have a third that I could easily live without (not saying nothing of his cap hit).

>> I can't be happy with overpaying for marginal talent here. The end result is a more expensive, less talented line, which forces us to cut back in other areas as well, and hope for the best.

I'll defer argument until I see the guy. More expensive? Are you sure?

>> Getting lucky with a late 3rd rounder, and crapping out with the scrubs we sign and other investments, does not equal an investment.

Getting lucky with a late 3rd rounder is a good thing, no? (Though I don't agree wholey with the "lucky" thing). Crapping out but good enough to get us to the SB. And we still don't know how our two fourths, Wesley and Branch, will turn out. If we get as lucky again this year with a 3rd and come up with a good safety (if we don't already have one), I think we have improved our DBs considerably ... without paying out the same wads of cash by some of these other teams.

>> Its that we don't spend on the secondary, and haven't. We have more invested in backups on the lines than we do in our entire secondary save Minter. And this has happened EACH year.

I don't see the problem with that.

 

>> I was thinking

This may be your problem here.....

LB was a need. A need for depth, which WW provided his rookie year, and was able to step in for injuries. But our starters were fine. Getting Fields moved Morgan to the middle (Morgan played 3 years weakside at Miami, BTW, at a high level, but yeah I never liked him at the buck) and Navies could move to a more natural weakside position.

By comparison, the CB position had plenty of "depth", just not much as far as someone to grow into a starter. And it was fed a lower priority.

Your ascertion is highly debateable, and far from obvious.

>>Just wondering what our LB situation woulda been like last year without WW.

And put in who instead? Just Allen? It'd be somewhat worsem yes. But if we had gotten a guy like Thornton? We'd be just as well, better, if it meant obtaining a player of similar talent to WW at the cornerback position.

>>As long as your stuck on the term "backup" I don't think you'll ever have a chance to see the light.

Please refrain from such comments. I have little desire to be shown the light, preacherman, and your not going to "lay hands" on me without buying me some dinner first.

He's a backup. He doesn't start. That's why I'm stuck on the term.

1, that you agree with the approach, doesn't mean what I'm saying doesn't exist. Interesting approach though. Arguing for something you say doesn't exist. Which is it, eh?



>>Gross protected Jake like no one we have ever had.

This would be humorous if it weren't so insulting to the other 4 starters. Gross played RT, first of all, not the more difficult LT. He had the benifit of seeing the second best pass rusher and getting a lot more help that Todd from Mangum and Hoover than Todd did. He did well enough, held his own, was a productive member of a very good line, but he out performed no one. He had his share of False starts and penalties, as did each. He gave up a handful of sacks, in his first game, and even in the postseason. He wasn't as good as Brock was in 96, or Todd in 2000, who had high level seasons from the Left Tackle spot. Hopefully next season he can meet that challenge, cause we are going to need him to, and this is what he was drafted for.


>>I'll defer argument until I see the guy. More expensive? Are you sure?

Well, we got Todd costing 4 million for nothing. Gross and Mitchell stay, only their natural raises. I have my reservatons about Nelson or Brez giving us Nelson. And Meadows, whom I've watched enough for the Colts, isn't as good a tackle as Stuessie, or as good a guard as James, even though he gets paid nearly as much as James got.

So yes, we are more expensive, and yet, right now, not as good.


>> Getting lucky with a late 3rd rounder, and crapping out with the scrubs we sign and other investments, does not equal an investment.

Getting lucky with a late 3rd rounder is a good thing, no? (Though I don't agree wholey with the "lucky" thing).

Yes. We are lucky that he was even their. We should have taken him higher. We knew he was a player, liked him, but still though backup TE and backup center were more important.

Depending on these kind of contributions from rookies is a dangerous way to live. Rule of thumb. For every rookie you start, add a loss. Damn. I guess we were a 13-3 team huh? Damn we were good. Actually allow Jake and our recievers to make a play before we absolutely need it, we might be 15-1.

As for the rest, we can take this to an extreme. Reyes may be the next Larry Allen. We can trade our first day picks for a boatload of second day picks, draft a boatload of defensive backs from Umpalumpa State, and come up with the best secondary this side of the Chocolate factory.


>>I don't see the problem with that.

If it continues, I'm willing to bet you will.

The nasty little secret is that it does get worse than Howard and Cousin. Howard actually began to play decently toward the end of the season. This isn't some wild experiment, depending on the rush, its been tried before. Problem is that it often fails as teams figure out how to get to that weakness. Like the Steelers. The Saints and the Titans a few years back. Great lines each of them. They went cheap on the corners and wasted some great pass rush.

I fear what happened to the Saints will happen to us. Secondary gets exposed, so the rush doesn't get their. People, and coaches, bring in high priced secondary guys, but pay for them by getting rid of their "overrated" lineman. Whoops.

Some balance, is all I'm asking for. We got a little better at it, with Manning giving us some playmaking. We struggled with our corner play for most of the season, Manning then carried us a bit, Howard played better, then we got exposed in the super bowl a bit as our rush got tired after playing almost an entire half.

And there's time to correct. But the investments have to be made. Maybe they will, finally. Benifit of the doubt has been given, two seasons and counting. Three, and it wains a bit. So I'm sorry I can't join you in your hip cheer just yet, HC, but you'll do fine without me.

Then again, I've never been one to say, if they don't trade up to get player A, some hip new QB, and draft an OT instead, that I'll never watch that team. Let's see. I don't take my ball home if everything doesn't go my way, but I don't do flips for the signings of bungle nicklebacks. I agree with some things, disagree with others. Hmmmm. By george, does seem to be a middle ground. Looks like I'm it.

 

>>and your disliking something you don't understand doesn't cause me alarm or surprise. between the two, I'll go with the blind faith crowd.

I understand it as well as it's been given to understand. We have the same information, you see hope and a wealth of signings, I see what we have. A heavy inclination to the lines and to borrow your phrase, pollyanna bullshit.


>>i guess if you are going to equate not having made a heavy investment with ignoring a position then you may have a point.

I consider putting it last amongst the needs, consistently, when corner's a pay-for-what-you-get position, ignoring it. We've had chances to avert this major overhaul, both with picks, FAs, resignings, and none of it actually happened other than Manning of any worth because it got put to the back burner.


>>I know you don't put much stock in backups but yes I can see not having anything remotely decent as a backup

But with a 2nd? You don't buy backup centers with a 2nd.


>>Just because they picked Nelson before they picked Manning doesn't mean that they placed higher priority on guard. CB coulda been the higher priority but they felt good about Manning and that they could get him where did.

And panicked to give up too much in trade for another shot at him?

They consistently do it. They squeeze DB into the last possible slot for a contributor. They sign DBs after everything else is done. I don't know how it could be made clearer.



>>see them shedding 2 starters and a nickle from the team. that tells me that they want better

No. They negotiated with two of them to the last minute, supposedly, and to this day you won't be able to tell me that they had a plan since they did not pursue a safety or cornerback until each left, and not until a good distance after Howard had left.

To say they want better suggests having gone after better. I'll see it when I see it, and if it's better I'll agree. Till then I'm not going to just hope that they want more and say that's what it is.



>>we've lost 3 starting OL with a second-year rook as our only viable replacement. you take a guess.

Suddenly Brzezinski's still here but he's nothing? What, your blind faith has nothing for Rich Tylski?

>>No, even a simpleton could follow the logic. You keep players who perform well and shed players that don't.

There you go again suggesting that Grant didn't perform. I get that you don't like the chap, that's been evident the whole time. Relevance?
SO that leaves you arguing that a backup end (a non-situational one) is more important than a starter.