Jump to content

2019 Steelers offseason news


warfelg

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, August4th said:

looks like the den job is between munch and vic fangio

Chi losing might be a blessing for us

If I'm Munch, I count my lucky stars to not get the Denver job. There are far more attractive landing spots. I know he has family there, but that looks like a treadmill team if I've ever seen one. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MOSteelers56 said:

If I'm Munch, I count my lucky stars to not get the Denver job. There are far more attractive landing spots. I know he has family there, but that looks like a treadmill team if I've ever seen one. 

yeah...they look like a team that will peak at 8-8/9-7..especially with KC and LA in that division

it would be Tennessee all over again for him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, August4th said:

yeah...they look like a team that will peak at 8-8/9-7..especially with KC and LA in that division

it would be Tennessee all over again for him

Let's be honest the only appealing open job right now in my opinion is the Cleveland Browns because they actually have a lot of potential and they already have a lot of players that fit into the Improvement of the team. Beyond that I mean I don't know all these open divisions are open for a reason and it's not just as simple as the coach failing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, warfelg said:

FWIW we actually were up there in fumbles under Saxon. 

Isn't this issue something a RB learned from day 1? I can't believe anyone would place blame on the coach for this. Whats next, if the laces become undone, blame the shoe company?

 

3 hours ago, August4th said:

yeah...they look like a team that will peak at 8-8/9-7..especially with KC and LA in that division

it would be Tennessee all over again for him

It helps to have a legit QB. Denver runs the ball, this helps, but they need a QB.   The browns responded with Williams as HC so I don't know why they would change that. They should have been in the playoffs if Hue wasn't there and the refs weren't on the raiders side in that game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 3rivers said:

Isn't this issue something a RB learned from day 1? I can't believe anyone would place blame on the coach for this. Whats next, if the laces become undone, blame the shoe company?

Just because you learn to hold it high and tight doesn't mean you don't have to keep working on it.  Yes, this is something that is on the coach to emphasize holding it in the right hand, two hand securing, where to carry it, how to take the handoff.  That's all stuff the coach is there to work on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, warfelg said:

Just because you learn to hold it high and tight doesn't mean you don't have to keep working on it.  Yes, this is something that is on the coach to emphasize holding it in the right hand, two hand securing, where to carry it, how to take the handoff.  That's all stuff the coach is there to work on.

Why is Saxon responsible? Why not just cut Ridley (a guy the Pats couldn't fix)? Maybe Conner was told how to fix his problem, and he didn't. Isn't that on Conner? Or maybe there was a general nonchalant approach to the problem like the one expressed publicly by people above Saxon. Maybe Saxon wasn't given much to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CKSteeler said:

Why is Saxon responsible? Why not just cut Ridley (a guy the Pats couldn't fix)? Maybe Conner was told how to fix his problem, and he didn't. Isn't that on Conner? Or maybe there was a general nonchalant approach to the problem like the one expressed publicly by people above Saxon. Maybe Saxon wasn't given much to work with.

I honestly think getting rid of Saxon is much simpler than that.

In fact I have two theories and I'm not sure which one is going to end up being true. The first theory is that Mike Tomlin has started the changes to the staff was simply not renewing the contract of guys who have one that is expiring before he makes the major change at defensive coordinator.

My second theory is that Mike Tomlin made at the two changes that he did so that he had Fall Guys that way when he doesn't fire Keith Butler he can make the claim that he made changes to the coaching staff that he believed we're responsible for their failures

My temperature is not to trash Mike Tomlin but I have a bad feeling that what's really going on here could be the latter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wwhickok said:

I honestly think getting rid of Saxon is much simpler than that.

In fact I have two theories and I'm not sure which one is going to end up being true. The first theory is that Mike Tomlin has started the changes to the staff was simply not renewing the contract of guys who have one that is expiring before he makes the major change at defensive coordinator.

My second theory is that Mike Tomlin made at the two changes that he did so that he had Fall Guys that way when he doesn't fire Keith Butler he can make the claim that he made changes to the coaching staff that he believed we're responsible for their failures

My temperature is not to trash Mike Tomlin but I have a bad feeling that what's really going on here could be the latter

It's funny...you say 'simpler', then construe two conspiracy theories...

You were right at first, though, it likely was simple--he wasn't performing to the expected level in one or more phases of his job--be it scouting, player development, or other functions deemed as a responsibility of his position.  Why can't it ever JUST be about that, because IMO, that is one key reason Porter was fired, and yes, attracting negative publicity to an organization is contrary to a coaches responsibilities to the team...and LB development...one out of three might be fine in the MLB, but not for a coach. (JJ, Dupree, Watt).

Edited by Ward4HOF
spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CKSteeler said:

Why is Saxon responsible? Why not just cut Ridley (a guy the Pats couldn't fix)? Maybe Conner was told how to fix his problem, and he didn't. Isn't that on Conner? Or maybe there was a general nonchalant approach to the problem like the one expressed publicly by people above Saxon. Maybe Saxon wasn't given much to work with.

I just said how Saxon could be responsible.  You bring up maybe Conner was told but didn't do it....that's on the coach to make sure it gets done.  I'm a golf coach, if I just tell my student once to change something, they don't, it's my responsibility to keep working on it with them until it's changed.  As good as our running backs were at certain things, there were struggles at others, and those 'other' things are things that should be covered with coaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

It's funny...you say 'simpler', then construe two conspiracy theories...

You were right at first, though, it likely was simple--he wasn't performing to the expected level in one or more phases of his job--be it scouting, player development, or other functions deemed as a responsibility of his position.  Why can't it ever JUST be about that, because IMO, that is one key reason Porter was fired, and yes, attracting negative publicity to an organization is contrary to a coaches responsibilities to the team...and LB development...one out of three might be fine in the MLB, but not for a coach. (JJ, Dupree, Watt).

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but as far as a conspiracy theories I'm just saying that it's possible that they say hey we made changes and we're not going to make any more. I honestly don't think that's going to be the case I think that they simply went with okay let's deal with the guys that have expiring contract first make a decision on them and then deal with the guys that are still on contract which I think it's completely possible because I really still believe that Keith Butler is going to be fired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but as far as a conspiracy theories I'm just saying that it's possible that they say hey we made changes and we're not going to make any more. I honestly don't think that's going to be the case I think that they simply went with okay let's deal with the guys that have expiring contract first make a decision on them and then deal with the guys that are still on contract which I think it's completely possible because I really still believe that Keith Butler is going to be fired

Fair enough...but do you think Butler is on the block before next season??  Or are you saying that it will take another season of 'proof' and other roster turnovers to have a case to say 'yeah, Butler is the problem'?

what I am saying, though, is, the guys that weren't performing were let go because they didn't perform at the level that the team expected them to; I don't think it was any kind of PR play, at all, TBH. (Well, I guess you could say protecting yourself from further embarrassment by one of your coaches is 'technically' PR, but I'm saying, I don't think it was to send some sort of message, or part of some more elaborate plan to shake up 'bigger' coaches on the roster.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

Fair enough...but do you think Butler is on the block before next season??  Or are you saying that it will take another season of 'proof' and other roster turnovers to have a case to say 'yeah, Butler is the problem'?

what I am saying, though, is, the guys that weren't performing were let go because they didn't perform at the level that the team expected them to; I don't think it was any kind of PR play, at all, TBH. (Well, I guess you could say protecting yourself from further embarrassment by one of your coaches is 'technically' PR, but I'm saying, I don't think it was to send some sort of message, or part of some more elaborate plan to shake up 'bigger' coaches on the roster.)

I'm sort of torn that's kind of why I suggested the conspiracy theories. Because on one hand it's plausible that they will just get rid of him now and it frankly that's what I hope that they do. But on the other hand they could use these two firings which I think are fair to say okay we made enough changes let's give everybody else at least one more season. As much as I hate to say it that would sort of be classic Pittsburgh Steelers. If they get rid of Keith Butler this season I would say that the previous two firings we're not part of an elaborate plan to make bigger changes at all he was simply the most reasonable starting point was to address expiring contracts. You can also argue that it wasn't an elaborate plan to get rid of two assistant coaches just to satisfy the fans and not fire Keith Butler that might have been the plan all along. I mean just because we want them to get fired doesn't mean that's what colbart or Mike Tomlin wants.

But I believe that they are going to steal fire Keith Butler. I just feel like they started at the most logical point and made decisions on expiring contracts first. I think that in itself would buy them more time to make bigger decisions but also it goes hand-in-hand with the same logic of players you don't go out and resign a guy who's got three years left on his contract before you go out and sign (or choose not to) a guy who is set to become a free agent.

Edited by wwhickok
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...