Draft Day Thread:

[Steeler Hitman]

 

Let the games begin! This ranks up there with Dan Marino likes to party! In the immortal words of Public Enemy, "Don't believe the hype!"

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Steeler Hitman

[jebrick]

Just proves that he does not know fecal matter on this.  Fields is one QB that is not falling out of the top 10.  If he falls past 5 I will be very very surprised.  I still think Lance is much more likely to fall as he is the most unrefined of the group ( after Zach Wilson perhaps).

[Dcash4]

Just now, bigben07MVP said:

I think they “Heinz Fields” makes it pretty obvious who they are referring to.

Im confused, why would they need to hop NYJ/Miami to get Fields?

HA! I missed that. Okay, Gerry. I getcha!

But yea, the second part doesn't quite make sense - he is missing everyone around them that would nap Fields. Fields is going to fall past NE, Wash, and Chicago? I do think there are scenarios they are all comfortable enough or in a situation to not sell the farm to move up....I don't think any of them would pass on him without needing to move. 

[cjfollett]

I thik there are 6-7 legit teams that need a QB (aside from the Steelers). It doesn't mean one is not going to fall to #24, but I have a real hard time seeing it unless the 49ers pass on QB in a huge surprise move.

[jebrick]

They would have to pull a KC and move yp to around 10 if he fell

 

[bigben07MVP]

3 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

HA! I missed that. Okay, Gerry. I getcha!

But yea, the second part doesn't quite make sense - he is missing everyone around them that would nap Fields. Fields is going to fall past NE, Wash, and Chicago? I do think there are scenarios they are all comfortable enough or in a situation to not sell the farm to move up....I don't think any of them would pass on him without needing to move. 

If he falls past NE, I think a trade up with Miami at 18 makes sense. 

[August4th]

have a hard time seeing NE, Chi, and WFT passing on one those top 5 QBs for one to fall to us. if Fields ends up a steeler, it will be because we traded up

[Steeler Hitman]

They already stated that a move up is highly unlikely. Next year that would make more sense with potential comp picks as ammo to trade up. Too many needs and not enough premium picks.  I think a move down in round one makes more sense if one of their players is not there.  They typically keep five to six players they would move down for or are looking to draft at their spot. At #24:

1. Najee Harris

2. Travis Etienne

3. Falling OT of choice Jenkins, Mayfield, or maybe even Cosmi

3. Falling defensive talent like Collins, JOK, or CB like Samuel, Fraley, or Campbell

4. Falling Edge like Phillips

5. Shock us and overdraft a C like Humphrey or Dickerson

I would guess if they move up it would be more logical to do in the second, third or fourth round. 

 

[kurgan]

2 hours ago, Steeler Hitman said:

I would agree.  I don't think that the drop-off between Harris and Etienne (as the top backs) and Williams (as the tier below them) is as great as the drop-off between Williams and the rest of the class: Gainwell, Sermon, Hubbard, Stevenson,  Patterson,  and Mitchell. Good backs, but then you are getting similar players as Snell, McFarland, and Samuels in terms of talent and not being ready to take over the rushing attack year one. 

The times that the OL actually created some holes (it was more than they were given credit for) Snell, McFarland and at times even James Connor didn't read the block well, were not patient in following the block or didn't explode through the hole. That timing comes through development in some cases and it is talent in others. I don't want to see another lower tier talented RB added to the roster. 

This is an interesting take (the second part).  I think of these guys as ice cream flavors.

Harris/Etienne are like do I want chocolate chocolate chip or chocolate chip cookie dough.  Both are great.  I prefer CCCD, but maybe others prefer CCP.  Canada might want one back, us Stillers forever guys want the other.  Willams is Moose Tracks... a fine option if they are out of the other two.  But, not what I came to the store for in the first place.  The other guys are taste preferences.... rocky road, peach cobbler, PB, etc etc.  If you have it, you are OK with it, but you really wanted the first two.  But, you will deal with what you got based on what you are feeling like.

Your second point has been the biggest issue I've had this offseason.  Rooney wants the run fixed.  We want the run fixed.  Coaches as well.  Bottom line, OL was built to pass pro and one-cut run for Bell.  You cannot make a change in one year, or even two.  People say OL was bad, others say we don't have a lead back.  It is a circular offense.  As was pointed out in another thread, we have to decide what we are.  HOW do you run the football??  Power, zone, spread option??  Outside, inside, one cut, read??  Bell left and the backs we got couldn't be him, so the OL was left in a lurch.  We can't draft a Bell, but even if we could, we don't have the same OL.  Now we change OC.  Do we draft a back that fits what Canada wants??  That changes EVERYTHING.  What if he dips in two years??

These are all things that we don't have access to.  All I can say for sure is that letting Connor go was a sign, as was drafting Dotson.  Tells me we want to run power based stuff.  No hop steps and looking for cutting.  Banner, DDC and Dotson are all Power Based guys.  It may not be 100% what Canada wants, but he can make it work.

The RB we add needs to be a 100% system fit or at least a complimentary back that will do something different.  Jury is out on McFarland, but I would think a tandem back with him and Snell as your wham guy COULD work, IF you decide on a philosophy and fit that accordingly.

[jebrick]

I would take Gainwell in a second if they miss out on Harris/Etienne in the 1st.  Gainwell is Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough from Kroger select brand rather than Haagen Dazs.

[cjfollett]

6 minutes ago, Steeler Hitman said:

They already stated that a move up is highly unlikely. Next year that would make more sense with potential comp picks as ammo to trade up.

Agree, I find it very hard to believe they would trade up for anyone this year. They have stated multiple times that most years they rank 24 players they would draft, and they take the highest one left -- most years. It's possible that they only have 15 targets or so, and if they are all gone, they trade down. I don't know how that works, but would love to be in the room.

 

[cjfollett]

6 minutes ago, jebrick said:

I would take Gainwell in a second if they miss out on Harris/Etienne in the 1st.  Gainwell is Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough from Kroger select brand rather than Haagen Dazs.

Gainwell at #24? 

[jebrick]

Just now, cjfollett said:

Gainwell at #24? 

No.  In the 2nd or 3rd round.   That is why he is the cheaper brand of IC that will taste just as good 🙂

Edited April 29, 2021 by jebrick

[cjfollett]

1 minute ago, jebrick said:

No.  In the 2nd or 3rd round.   That is why he is the cheaper brand of IC that will taste just as good 🙂

Okay. makes sense. I know the Steelers have reached in the past, but that would sprain a hammy for sure

[Dcash4]

I understand that the team has said it's unlikely that they would trade up. But if they are unwilling to trade up for the most important position in football by far without a future plan currently on the roster -- they need to be removed from their decision making positions.

I would understand not moving up if the cost is too high and you are not in love with the prospect, but if you do like Fields and he does fall to 10...your love for the 8 picks you have needs to be thrown so far into the ocean as possible.