Way too early 2022 offseason thoughts

[3rivers]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

Not good. He’s been in there before, either hurt or COVID, and sadly LeGlur outplayed him. 

maybe a legit OL coach is more important. Munchak was the key to the offence when it was good.  Ben and bell have proved this

[jebrick]

13 minutes ago, 3rivers said:

okorafor might be better at LT, how do you know this ? Mason won't get the start, but agree they should but it's too late anyways.  Colbert is going to leave this team in bad shape moving forward for whoever takes over .Thats nice of him

Chuks is just like Max Starks.  A technician in pass blocking.  Not good in run blocking because he  would prefer to wall off rather than road grade.  I am guessing that Ben is so gun shy at this point to to Moore ending up in his lap, that it would help to move Chuks there.  It olny works if Banner is ready to move to RT.

[3rivers]

8 minutes ago, jebrick said:

Chuks is just like Max Starks.  A technician in pass blocking.  Not good in run blocking because he  would prefer to wall off rather than road grade.  I am guessing that Ben is so gun shy at this point to to Moore ending up in his lap, that it would help to move Chuks there.  It olny works if Banner is ready to move to RT.

i would prefer they move on and get better OL players.  But of course, we can also say that about ILB, SS, CB, WR and unless Tuitt and Alualu return, DL of course which is the worst it's ever been since?

[warfelg]

This is why it’s a multi year rebuild. Get Linderbaum in the 1st, a guard in the 3rd. Sign a tackle in FA. Someone to stopgap at LT a year and slide to RT after. I’m curious on how capable Conner Williams or La’el Collins are at that and make that move. My big FA signing would be a CB. Extend Fitzpatrick. 
 

That’s year one. 
 

Year two is to make the DJ and Claypool decisions. Get a Franchise QB. Get a franchise LT. If you front load 2022 contracts you can still have space to work on DL, ILB, CB2. 

[3rivers]

• The Pittsburgh Steelers announced that offensive line coach Adrian Klemm has been granted permission to leave the team and accept a similar position with the University of Oregon football team. Assistant OL coach Chris Morgan will handle Klemm's duties for the rest of the season.

 

 

[warfelg]

So I think it was @Dcash4 that was talking about all the RB/WR picks and lack of second round contracts. 
 

And a few days thinking about it, I got some thoughts around that whole topic. I’ve got problems with using that much and no problem with it at the same time. 
 

I’ll break this down to the two sides:

NO PROBLEM -

Especially at WR we are good at drafting that position and identifying skill sets. If we’re good at it I don’t want to pay guys big money deals. If you look through, based on trading guys or compensatory picks we often get back something good out of it. I rather spend the resource of a pick for for a 2 and 3 WR that have minimal cap impact than pay a 2 WR $10+ mil for the same production. 
 

PROBLEM -

We don’t always use those picks. We’ve spent so many on WRs and RBs who could be good situational players then never use them or develop them. And without being in the building I dunno I’d this is a coaching problem or talent problem. I tend to think at RB it’s a coaching problem as we know Tomlin prefers the bell cow back over committee. And at WR I think it’s a “Ben Problem” in that he loses trust in guys fast for no reason at times. And we’re drafting this positions every single year. Doesn’t give a chance for guys like Washington, Samuels, and countless others to breathe. 
 

I think if they took off a few of those years it wouldn’t look so bad or if they bothered to rotate the RB more. Like right this hot minute I look at this devotion to Ray Ray and pushing McFarland big last year while he’s been invisible this year (I know he was hurt at one point but we’ve had way too many “not there” guys this year. 

[Dcash4]

2 hours ago, warfelg said:

I rather spend the resource of a pick for for a 2 and 3 WR that have minimal cap impact than pay a 2 WR $10+ mil for the same production. 

IMO, at some point this doesnt make sense if what you are doing is continually picking those same positions. The draft is still where you will be making the biggest changes on your team/franchise for future impact. As of right now, would you rather pay $5M for Sammy Watkins with JuJu, DJ, and Washington already on the team and have the 49th overall pick as a DL or OL right now or the situation we are in with Claypool on a lower contract and poor depth elsewhere?

The bigger issue is that we have used pick 49, 66, 60, and 62 in consecutive drafts to fill out a WR room. Those are prime draft picks and some of them have cancelled out the other (Claypool to Washington). 

WR is too deep in the NFL with capable players. I'd far and away rather spend $5-8M on a guy occasionally than continually use top 70 draft picks on the same position. 

They didn't use the same caliber of pick at RB, but the way Tomlin uses running backs (as you alluded to) doens't make sense for continually depth. Either get the prime rib or shop in the discount FA bin. I'd rather pay $2M per to Carlos Hyde for 2 years than have picked McFarland with pick 124 after picking Snell, Samuels, and Connor in consecutive years. Maybe we hit on a CB, or an IOL, or a NT....or just a guy that can play special teams. 

[warfelg]

43 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

IMO, at some point this doesnt make sense if what you are doing is continually picking those same positions. The draft is still where you will be making the biggest changes on your team/franchise for future impact. As of right now, would you rather pay $5M for Sammy Watkins with JuJu, DJ, and Washington already on the team and have the 49th overall pick as a DL or OL right now or the situation we are in with Claypool on a lower contract and poor depth elsewhere?

The bigger issue is that we have used pick 49, 66, 60, and 62 in consecutive drafts to fill out a WR room. Those are prime draft picks and some of them have cancelled out the other (Claypool to Washington). 

WR is too deep in the NFL with capable players. I'd far and away rather spend $5-8M on a guy occasionally than continually use top 70 draft picks on the same position. 

They didn't use the same caliber of pick at RB, but the way Tomlin uses running backs (as you alluded to) doens't make sense for continually depth. Either get the prime rib or shop in the discount FA bin. I'd rather pay $2M per to Carlos Hyde for 2 years than have picked McFarland with pick 124 after picking Snell, Samuels, and Connor in consecutive years. Maybe we hit on a CB, or an IOL, or a NT....or just a guy that can play special teams. 

I kinda addressed all of this along the way. 

[Dcash4]

3 hours ago, warfelg said:

I kinda addressed all of this along the way. 

I guess I didn't see the connection of what my core issue is with the value of the assets they are using in your statement. Top 100 picks should never be considered a usage for cheap depth. Those are franchise building picks. We have a big enough issue retaining second round picks, oddly enough, that we don't need to manufacture problems. 

If you wanna throw a 6th round pick at receiver from now through the rest of eternity, cool. But the top 66 is way too value and impactful to your future. .

[warfelg]

3 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

I guess I didn't see the connection of what my core issue is with the value of the assets they are using in your statement. Top 100 picks should never be considered a usage for cheap depth. Those are franchise building picks. We have a big enough issue retaining second round picks, oddly enough, that we don't need to manufacture problems. 

If you wanna throw a 6th round pick at receiver from now through the rest of eternity, cool. But the top 66 is way too value and impactful to your future. .

Right. But what I was saying is I have no problem if they use a 2nd or 3rd to get a number two WR, then in his 4th year we use a 2nd or 3rd to groom a replacement. 
 

I have a problem with 2nd for JuJu, 3rd for Washington, 3rd for DJ the following year, 2nd for Claypool that next year. My problem with this is you never gave Washington the chance to grow and see what he was. If we did the 2nd for Juju, 2nd for Claypool in that you are looking at Claypool to replace Juju (of course this is perfect world no Brown going nuts) then I like the use of that. 
 

The simple of what I was saying:

Using that high pick yearly at that position is a problem. Not paying that position a second contract and using the draft to get it when needed because you are good at finding it is not a problem. 

[Dcash4]

14 hours ago, warfelg said:

Not paying that position a second contract and using the draft to get it when needed because you are good at finding it is not a problem

For me, it just depends on when that person was drafted. If you used a top 50 pick, like Claypool, just for cheap depth we are doing it wrong no matter how often you do or do not do it. 

Just as an example for him, at pick 49 if you let him walk the best you can get back in comp is 97. That's not a good trade off. 

[warfelg]

52 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

For me, it just depends on when that person was drafted. If you used a top 50 pick, like Claypool, just for cheap depth we are doing it wrong no matter how often you do or do not do it. 

Just as an example for him, at pick 49 if you let him walk the best you can get back in comp is 97. That's not a good trade off. 

You keep quoting only parts of what I’m saying and adding to it as if I’m not adding that extra bit. Because that’s exactly what I’m agreeing with of drafting two guys in the 40-60 range in a row is a bad thing. But getting the same production from a pick in the 40-50 range as someone you could pay in FA $5-12mil is a good thing. 

[Dcash4]

43 minutes ago, warfelg said:

You keep quoting only parts of what I’m saying and adding to it as if I’m not adding that extra bit. Because that’s exactly what I’m agreeing with of drafting two guys in the 40-60 range in a row is a bad thing. But getting the same production from a pick in the 40-50 range as someone you could pay in FA $5-12mil is a good thing. 

You seem to keep missing what I’m adding: 

Drafting in the second round for depth to let that player walk to redraft = bad concept. 

If you have said that and I continue to re-quote you…I apologize for the repeats. But I don’t believe you have stated that and seem to believe that’s okay — whereas I do not. 

[warfelg]

13 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

You seem to keep missing what I’m adding: 

Drafting in the second round for depth to let that player walk to redraft = bad concept. 

If you have said that and I continue to re-quote you…I apologize for the repeats. But I don’t believe you have stated that and seem to believe that’s okay — whereas I do not. 

WR2 and WR3 aren’t depth. They’re starters. Cost controlled starters = good. 
 

Drafting a 2nd round WR, then a 3rd round, then 3rd round, then 2nd round in 4 straight drafts = bad. 
 

Personally I have 0 issue If they kept using a 2nd or 3rd rounder on a WR every 3-4 years and we’re able to get the same production for a WR2 rather than pay more on the cap for the same production. That gives them the ability to pull in FAs at a spot they maybe aren’t good at drafting (CB). 
 

I do have an issue with them using a 2nd on Juju, then the very next year using a 3rd on Washington, then the very next year use a 3rd on Johnson, then the very next year use a 2nd on Claypool. And then after all of that a UDFA gets more opportunities and plays for him than 2 of those picks. Mostly because you keep on putting resources at the same position without a way of seeing what they can give you. 
 

Now that being said, I do think Washington was drafted to play outside with Juju in the slot and AB opposite. AB went nuts, which lead to drafting Johnson. And Claypool was likely taken to make up for Washington being a “bust” and Juju about to be a FA.
 

But you look before that and the drafting always made sense. Had Ward, brought in Burrass. Let Plex leave and get Holmes. Let Holmes go and we get Wallace. Hines retires. We had Wallace and Washington, and when their contracts wound down we picked up Brown and Sanders, and as Sanders left we get Juju. I dunno what happened the last 4 drafts but up until that point they were doing what I’m ok with quite successfully and no one complained. 

[MOSteelers56]

This is an interesting discussion about WRs. I hope we bring back JuJu and aren't looking to draft someone. JuJu and Claypool should rotate as the slot and X with Diontae at the Z. I think it would be a pretty big waste of picks to take a WR, unless we can't bring one of JuJu or Washington back. I doubt it'll be Washington, though.  I think it'd be disappointing to not bring back JuJu. I wouldn't break the bank for him, maybe a shorter 2-3 year deal. He's not in the best leverage spot in terms of big money.