Spinning Tires: Steelers 2021 Offseason and Beyond...

[warfelg]

@Dcash4

Let me ask you something:

Ben says this is the final year, Mason is expiring next year, Haskins is a RFA next year.  If we restructure Ben (which seems inevitable at this point), since you bring up keeping an eye towards the future, what would you plan to do basically having to keep in mind that $5-6mil of Ben's dead money could be "counted" as part of the cost of a starting QB.

2022 QB class sucks as it stands right now coming out of college, and 2022 FA class as it stands of right now is Nick Foles, Tysum Hill, and Marcus Mariota.  And if not extended and just tagged, Dak is the option there.  

So what do you do?  Trade up high for Mac Jones?  Hope Kyle Trask later is the answer?  Extend Mason or Haskins without seeing them in too much more game situation?  2021 is the year to have to make a move at QB, not 2022.

42 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

You guys keep acting like it’s super bowl or bust and that our situation next year drastically changes if we don’t have ben....it doesn’t. But y’all better become Chiefs fans real quick. 

Yes, to me it's Super Bowl or bust.  No I don't think our situation dramatically changes if we don't have Ben, I think you got me confused with someone else.  And that last one is honestly disrespectful from one of the few people with an opposing viewpoint I actually don't ming debating stuff with.

[Dcash4]

29 minutes ago, warfelg said:

$5-6mil of Ben's dead money could be "counted" as part of the cost of a starting QB

To start, this is irrelevant to me. Blank canvas of cap space in the upcoming years. Between a first year cap hit, scheduled guys hits certain ways, or a simple restructure. That number is meaningless. 

29 minutes ago, warfelg said:

So what do you do?  Trade up high for Mac Jones?  Hope Kyle Trask later is the answer?  Extend Mason or Haskins without seeing them in too much more game situation?  2021 is the year to have to make a move at QB, not 2022

It’s not fair because I’m answering your question with a question:

What changes that scenario if we don’t keep Ben?

Nothing. Mason isn’t the answer, heck you have a better time convincing me it’s Haskins, though I think we all know it’s not. He’s also a RFA from what I saw, so it’s not next year or bust. 

It’s not like the choice to keep Ben changes anything about the situation of finding a QB of the future. Cutting him doesn’t magically open a door to options. It’s the same now with Ben as it would be without. So I’ll take the better option now as it doesn’t stop me from doing anything. I can have Ben and still select Mac Jones or trade up for Trey Lance. I still have the same FA pool and draft pool next year. What changes? 

2022 is going to be a page one rewrite of the QB position. But without knowing whose declaring, who’s getting cut, whose drafting a QB making their starter irrelevant, etc we don’t know what’s available yet. Ive seen multiple mocks with the Eagles drafting a QB, which would make Hurts available. There’s always rumors about Derek Carr and Gruden breaking up. Maybe the Packers re-up Rodgers making Love a target. Kirk Cousins is extremely cuttable, as is Garapollo. Maybe it’s Sam Darnold for free after a cut or Minshew. 

QB is best answered in the draft, but super early in the draft and it’s a crap shoot of who might be available that year or at that spot or how many teams are needing. Which is why I’m for keeping an eye to the future (a la resigning key guys like Hinton or Sutton) that help present and future and figuring out the full picture when we get there because who knows? It’s also why I’m not interested in wasting a year...who knows if “competing for playoffs” is new “competing for Super Bowls” after this..

29 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Yes, to me it's Super Bowl or bust.  No I don't think our situation dramatically changes if we don't have Ben, I think you got me confused with someone else.  And that last one is honestly disrespectful from one of the few people with an opposing viewpoint I actually don't ming debating stuff with.

That really wasn’t all intended for you, though I apologize it came off that way due to quoting you. I was basically rolling everyone in together unfairly. 

And if it is super bowl or bust then I would think you would be happier with the team selecting who they believe would be the best player at the position with all available options considered. Chances are, if SB is your only measurable goal, your gonna be upset for a long while now. Our odds to win the super bowl are low this year and will be low next year and the year after without a Pat Mahomes type QB. Who knows when that’s available to us? 

You guys are worried about super bowl or bust, but the way this sport goes this could be our last chance at playoffs for years. That concept scares the life out of me to the point that I have no interest not trying to win. I think they are fielding the best team they believe they can, and I respect that. I don’t think the Ben decision is anything other than just that. 

[warfelg]

5 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

To start, this is irrelevant to me. Blank canvas of cap space in the upcoming years. Between a first year cap hit, scheduled guys hits certain ways, or a simple restructure. That number is meaningless

Very over simplification. No it’s not meaningless. Dead money is always meaningful and teams generally don’t like having it. Plus, dependent on what you give as a signing bonus, some first year cap hits are unavoidable. Lower cap space would mean smaller signing bonuses, meaning you got to hope guys are willing to make less guaranteed upfront money. 
 

 

7 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

It’s also why I’m not interested in wasting a year...who knows if “competing for playoffs” is new “competing for Super Bowls” after this..

We’re wasting a year with Ben or without Ben. It’s why I pose the question (more for the person that keeps saying Ben is still really good) of what the cap is. I think you are talking maybe an extra win or two with Ben. Maybe. So all we might be doing is putting off the wasted year(s) that come with not kicking off the succession plan sooner than later. 
 

Like, who know, Mason could go out there and be half decent. But now to see that they need to extend him. Haskins could have learned his lesson and been better, but we’ll need to keep him as a RFA to know. 
 

Now that we know Ben is back, I wish we didn’t have all the holes we have (LT, OC, TE, RB, OLB depth, DL depth, CB) because I would be all for moving up in the draft for a QB. But can’t spend the draft capital of 2 1sts, a 2nd, and more to go up into the top 10 for Fields, Lance, Mack, or Wilson. 

[warfelg]

14 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

You guys are worried about super bowl or bust, but the way this sport goes this could be our last chance at playoffs for years. That concept scares the life out of me to the point that I have no interest not trying to win. I think they are fielding the best team they believe they can, and I respect that. I don’t think the Ben decision is anything other than just that. 

Sorry. Wanted to comment quickly on this:

It scares me more to push all in on a year to try to make the playoffs for one more year rather than focusing on what we need to do for the next Super Bowl. 
 

And I might be doing a little lumping in here: but for all the complaints of the first round losses there are sure a lot of fans that say they want Ben back because “maybe we can make the playoffs.” Again I know you aren’t one of them, but if they complain about a first round loss by an over the hill QB and whine this team can’t win, they can shove it. 

[Dcash4]

10 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Very over simplification. No it’s not meaningless. Dead money is always meaningful and teams generally don’t like having it. Plus, dependent on what you give as a signing bonus, some first year cap hits are unavoidable. Lower cap space would mean smaller signing bonuses, meaning you got to hope guys are willing to make less guaranteed upfront money.

I know we have opposite views on this but we have operated with high cap numbers and dead space for years now. We have a low cap number next year, few committed high cap numbers, and an expanding salary cap. There’s too many ways to get by with small dead cap numbers for me to think that holds us up. Heck, $5m we might have enough cap space next season to completely have it off our books next year with no further restructures. It only matters to the extend you can’t manage it. We have too many options to manage it in our current situation. 

14 minutes ago, warfelg said:

We’re wasting a year with Ben or without Ben

Bringing Ben back to try to win games isn’t wasted in my book. It’s trying. Going with Mason is wasting. I know what he is, it’s not good. 

15 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Mason could go out there and be half decent. But now to see that they need to extend him

Just my two cents on Mason (therefor it’s probably worth less than .02), but his issues are not fixable. Been watching him and it’s his lack of instincts at the position that are going to hold him back. Not necessarily reading defense or throwing the ball. I think he throws a great ball. He’s crap at managing the pocket. He will always be awkward there and it affects him constantly. That’s a natural ability, not a taught one. He won’t get better here and it intensifies the issues he has reading and reacting downfield.

Its why I’m as out on him as you can be. I see no upside. What you see is what you get, and it’s not worth a second contract price at QB. 

19 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I wish we didn’t have all the holes we have (LT, OC, TE, RB, OLB depth, DL depth, CB) because I would be all for moving up in the draft for a QB

Yeah, we are just gonna have to wait and see. Would have loved to have seen the non-pandemic plan with a cap closer to $208M. But it’s going to be interesting to see how they plug holes. It’s why I went Feiler in my mock off-season. Makes me feel better about solidifying one spot and having 3 options at LT (Banner, Chucks, and a potential rookie). But if they like Banner a lot, maybe they do make a move to get into the 13-15 range for a Lance. I think that feels ideal, but costly. But if I could make that trade and keep my second to grab an OC, I’d be pretty content with the draft. 

[Dcash4]

19 minutes ago, warfelg said:

It scares me more to push all in on a year to try to make the playoffs for one more year rather than focusing on what we need to do for the next Super Bowl. 

Forgot to add this into my last comment. Personally, I just don’t see the hindrance to that with Ben here trying to even just make playoffs. I just don’t think it changes the overall path of the franchise looking into the future. So feeling like that, I want the best chance to win now. 

[VigilantZombie]

I'm standing by all the things I've said thus far. Having said that. I'm gonna try to find some positive in this because it's the reality we must move forward with. Even if it's a pipe dream I'm gonna tell myself 2021 is the year because I mean... 21 is divisible by 7 just sayin'

[warfelg]

I'll put it this way:

With Ben I think our chances at -

9 wins or less 50%

Making the playoffs 35%

Winning a playoff game 10%

Winning the Super Bowl 1%

So if I've got Ben coming back, and my hope is to maybe make the playoffs, I feel all you are doing is putting off the rebuild rather than actually knowing you are competing.  And when I think to always be competing for a Super Bowl (SB or Bust mentality) that means knowing when to move on to reopen that window.  

Keep in mind in 2021 we face the AFCW, NFCN, meaning we're playing KC, GB, likely improved Chargers, Raiders, the somehow has our number Bears, and we also get the Bills and Titans (who we should have lost to if it weren't a missed kick), and the Seahawks.  This leaves out the Broncos, Vikings, Lions.

So if you maybe do some guesswork here:

Ravens 1-1

Browns 1-1

Bengals 2-0

Broncos, Vikings, Lions are all wins.

That's 5 wins.  I think it's going to take at least 10-7 to make the playoffs.

So with that what 5 games of Chiefs, Packers, Chargers, Raiders, Bears, Bills, Titans, Seahawks do you see winning?

[Dcash4]

1 hour ago, warfelg said:

So with that what 5 games of Chiefs, Packers, Chargers, Raiders, Bears, Bills, Titans, Seahawks do you see winning?

I like to look at win/loss predictions by thinking about a 10 game sample size, not one off games. Who do I think we can beat 5+ times because that makes me believe we are a better team. 

Chiefs and Packers do not fall into that category. 

Chargers, Raiders, Bears, Titans, and Seahawks do. This isnt me saying that's 5-0, but that's 5 winnable games. 

I wont attempt to convince anybody of us betting the Bills 5 out of 10 times, but boy I am actually really excited about that game. We kicked that game off with a DJ drop that seemed to suck the life out of the whole team in a "here we go again" way. I've never seen TJ look like he gave up before, but the end of that game was ugly. 

So adding in your earlier games, I see 12 possible wins, so I would put our range from 8-13 wins. 

If the defense is good and the offense is middling, we can win 8-10 games. If the defense is great and the offense is middling, we can win 10-12. 

At this point, I honestly think some people are going to be surprised when the Steelers don't flat out suck. This team collapsed after injuries to its defense and an awful offensive scheme/inability to adapt caught up to them. Re-watching this team is far closer to the first 11 games than the last 6. 

[Dcash4]

@warfelg looking back at your comment, I think you some typos. You actually start at 7 wins, not 5 (Raven, Browns split, 2 against the Bengals, and Detroit, Minnesota, and the Broncos)

So in reality, we only need 3 wins against the teams listed at the bottom -- and thats extremely manageable. 

[warfelg]

I’d take Titans and Seahawks out of that can beat 5/10 times to be honest. Bills is certainly in that for me. 
 

Honestly 1000% disagree with your assessment that were closer to the first 11 games than the last 6. 

[warfelg]

14 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

@warfelg looking back at your comment, I think you some typos. You actually start at 7 wins, not 5 (Raven, Browns split, 2 against the Bengals, and Detroit, Minnesota, and the Broncos)

So in reality, we only need 3 wins against the teams listed at the bottom -- and thats extremely manageable. 

Sorry I miss-added. I should have given the range of 5-8 because I do think we could get swept by the Browns and Ravens and split with the Bengals. 
 

So if your statement is you just want to win, would you sign on to right now not complain at all if they have a winning record but miss the playoffs or make the playoffs and lose in doubt one? (This goes not just for you but anyone who wants Ben back because “we can win a few more games”)

I know you keep pushing the idea that we can just push off money and retain guys. We can’t and we won’t be able to. Yea might a FA C and Rookie LT be better than Pouncey and Villanueva? Sure. Silly to say no. But you are also counting on guys developing fast. Same at running back. We’re gonna lose depth at key spots like DL, CB, EDGE, TE. 
 

I guess my big issue is I struggle to see the reasoning that this team is going to lose a good number of key contributors and somehow be as good or better than the previous year. 

[Dcash4]

17 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Titans and Seahawks

Titans lost their difference maker in Arthur Smith so its a big question mark of how well they move forward. They have a good, but aged offensive line that run blocks for a stud that has over 700 touches in the last two years. Tight to the cap and losing their #2 receiver and potentially starting TE. Their defense....sucks, not really any other words for it. 

They don't scare me. Stop the run and just don't turn it over and you are in that game. Doesnt mean you win it, but its not a blow out. 

I do not like the Seahawks. Bad defense with high priced guys (woof that Adams trade). They have not drafted particularly well and made some moves that don't help their future outlook. I'm interested to see how their new OC handles things with Wilson, but unless they overhaul the OL too....they don't scare me either, same as above.

Both teams, I am more than confident in our defense against their limited offenses and happy enough with a middle of the road offense playing against bad defenses. 

If you say you dont see 5+ wins, that's okay. But its definitely closer to 50/50 than anything else. This is all a conversation for another day, but I do like chatting about it. 

25 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Honestly 1000% disagree with your assessment that were closer to the first 11 games than the last 6. 

Agree to disagree. Bush back and a second year of Highsmith is huge and an offense that doesn't drop 13 balls in 3 games is too. When you and I can call out what we do on 3rd and longer than 7 or what we do on 2nd/3rd and 2 out of a bunch to the right, or where to attack on a handoff -- you can be sure NFL defenses will know too.

18 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I do think we could get swept by the Browns and Ravens and split with the Bengals. 

For sure, but I also think we can sweep the Browns or the Ravens too, I'm not saying it's likely, but it's in the realm of possibility. I like our defense vs both of those QBs.

I know the Browns game left a terrible taste in peoples mouth, but that game is the outlier - the 1 out of 10. The Browns have to play perfectly and ranked as one of the luckiest teams by DVOA in the history of football to end with the record they did. I have no problem thinking they are a better team than us as of right now moving forward, but they are also not some unstoppable force. They are a good, not great team with Baker Mayfield at the helm. 

12 minutes ago, warfelg said:

So if your statement is you just want to win, would you sign on to right now not complain at all if they have a winning record but miss the playoffs or make the playoffs and lose in doubt one?

Yup. 

I'll say it this way. I am an Orioles fan (Im sure Pirates fans can relate). It absolutely sucks when you are irrelevant after the first pitch of the season. If you tell me we will be in it fighting for playoffs in week 17/18. Sign me up all day. 

Ive said it a handful of times, but I do not see anything we do this season greatly affecting the future of the team, so why not try to be as good as you can now? 

21 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I know you keep pushing the idea that we can just push off money and retain guys. We can’t and we won’t be able to. Yea might a FA C and Rookie LT be better than Pouncey and Villanueva? Sure. Silly to say no. But you are also counting on guys developing fast. Same at running back. We’re gonna lose depth at key spots like DL, CB, EDGE, TE. 

We CAN retain guys. You want Sutton, sign him. Hilton? Do it. You want Bud and JuJu? That's probably a stretch, but they are also probably our two most replaceable guys vs. cost. But thats the NFL....If you're extremely worried about the future, cut Haden and use his money. There are paths to retaining the future talent AND being successful in 2021.  

What guys am I counting on developing fast? Honestly, looking at the depth chart I made - Who am I counting on? Im pretty sure I don't even have one rookie starting (though, I anticipate that happening at OC if all goes well). 

I'd love to get more depth at DL and Edge. We have plenty if the offseason goes how I think at CB and TE is a depthless position in the NFL. Depth doesn't exist in most cases in the NFL, so Im not holding back in 2021 if I don't have depth somewhere. 

29 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I guess my big issue is I struggle to see the reasoning that this team is going to lose a good number of key contributors and somehow be as good or better than the previous year. 

Let's do this scenario. You cut Ben and save that $4M.....what difference can you make that has such a high impact you think it changes the trajectory of the future? 

How different are we with DJ, Claypool, and Washington as our top three, considering that the first two are probably the most talented of the group even with JuJu? Highsmith graded higher than Dupree as a pass rusher so maybe we actually evolve more to a 4 man rush and end up being better for it. 

I would argue you are actually in a worse position moving forward with the margins of the roster and losing guys going after either of them rather than keeping Ben. JuJu is going to cost around $8M in 21. I cannot imagine signing Dupree long term is worth it with the way Highsmith played and a one year hit would be too heavy, So its either a one year $12M hit (minimum) or a long term deal being more expensive than rookie deal Highsmith and probably costing around $6M (minimum) next year. Those are both higher first year hits than Ben's $4m. So I believe you will actually lose MORE that route than keeping Ben and retaining guys like Sutton (future starting LCB), Hilton (Starting SCB), and Feiler (Starting RT).

That's what confuses me about the future conversation. You can make the argument I retain more future impact players and fill more starting spots WITH Ben rather than retaining Dupree or JuJu, who while good talents are both probably already "replaced" on the roster. You would retain the MOST by cutting Ben and letting JuJu and Dupree walk.

That's why I am not worried about it. If we lost Hilton, Feiler, or Sutton....such is life in the NFL. JuJu and Dupree? A position that already seems to have a very viable starter and our best drafted position that still has good depth AND we can get 2 high comp picks. That's not going to keep me up at night. 

We are not going to lose ALL the guys. We might lose some. But I don't think we are losing any all-pro type talent that drastically changes the course of the ship. I am not saying we wont lose out on someone because of that potential $4M of available space, but we don't lose out on everyone. 

[warfelg]

 

[Dcash4]

11 minutes ago, warfelg said:

 

Breaking news. 

That doesn't feel like it needed to be put out there? I dont know. That feels weird now. Feels like a response to the media, which is something I don't think a lot of big organizations do. 

I wasn't really expecting a lot from a statement, but I expected a little more than that...guess that's on me though.