Way too early 2022 offseason thoughts

[43M]

29 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I’m sorry @43M but your counterpoints don’t change my opinion at all. Mostly because I’m on board with Schobert being gone, I just don’t see the need to do it right this minute. 

I wasnt really trying to change your opinion.

I was asking you to provide a factual assessment of what Schobert has to offer and what benefit keeping him around actually has.

[warfelg]

So I wanted to try something different on the mock simulators. Instead of picking for the Steelers, I want to let the computer control it.  3 sites, 3 runs, 3 results.  Figured then I could use the common result of that to build out what the draft should look like.  My general rule of thumb is I'll take the Lions or Jaguars and do a BPA to not mess with the draft board too much (I picked these two teams as they need everything so BPA is a good bet for their draft).

Sorted by round.  Number in () is the run of the sim.  What's in [] is if there's a trade.

So starting with PFF:

Round 1: Sam Howell QB UNC (1), David Ojabo ED Michigan (2), Devin Lloyd LB Utah (3)

     Most common passed on: Jordan Davis, Kenyon Green, Nakobe Dean, Chris Olave

Round 2: Leon Chenal LB Wisconsin (1), Kenneth Walker III HB Michigan State (2), Christian Harris LB Alabama

     Most common passed on: Travis Jones, Myjai Sanders, David Bell, 

Round 3: Marcus Jones CB Houston (1), Josh Paschal ED Kentucky (2), Jamaree Sayler T Georgia (3)

Round 4: Zamir White HB Georgia (1), Ed Ingram G LSU (2), Zamir White HB Georgia (3)

Round 6: Tyrese Robinson T Oklahoma (1), Tyrese Robinson T Oklahoma (2), Austin Deculus T LSU (3)

Round 7: LaBryan Ray ED Alabama (1), Josh Thompson CB Texas (1), LaBryan Ray ED Alabama (2), Isaac Taylor-Stuart CB USC (2), Kalon Barnes CB Baylor (3), EJ Perry QB Brown (3)

So other than PFF being a mess, we  can see they are heavy with 2 defensive players and 1 offensive player in early rounds.  Yes it does kinda grind my gears that in 2/3 of the drafts they take the same position in 2 of the first 3 rounds.  Also I HATE the Howell, Walker, White picks.  Just throwing away picks.

Moving onto the PFN Mock Simulator:

Round 1: Sam Howell QB North Carolina (1), Kenny Pickett QB Pitt (2), TRADE [20 to Arizona for 23, 2023 3rd], TRADE [23 for 43, 58, 74], TRADE [43, 58 for 27], Kenny Pickett QB Pitt (3)

    Passed on: Nakobe Dean, Kaiir Elam, Tyler Linderbaum, Devin Lloyd, Jahan Dotson

Round 2: Christian Watson WR North Dakota State (1), Derion Kendrick CB Georgia (2), Arnold Ediketie ED Penn State (3)

   Passed on: Kyler Gordon, Sean Rhyan, Travis Jones

Round 3: Alec Lindstrom C Boston College (1), Abraham Lucas OT Washington State (2), Roger McCreary CB Auburn (3), Nicholas Petit-Frere OT Ohio State (3)

Round 4: Tariq Castro-Fields CB Penn State (1), Cameron Jurgens OC Nebraska (2), TRADE [138 for 140, 258], Kyle Phillips WR UCLA (3)

Round 7: Vincent Gray CB Michigan (1), Zachary Thomas OT San Diego State (1),  Logan Bruss OT Wisconsin (2), Velus Jones Jr WR Tennessee (2), Logan Bruss OT Wisconsin (3), Zander Horvath RB Purdue (3), Reggie Roberson WR SMU (3)

PFN really worked hard to force a QB in Round 1, and easily was doing it for a ton of teams.  Corral went high, Willis goes top 11 every time, Pickett, Howell, and Strong all went in the first 34 picks every time as well.  Ridder Snuck into the 1st once as well.

Lastly The Draft Network's mock.

Round 1: Malik Willis QB Liberty (1), Zion Johnson IOL Boston College (2), Jordan Davis IDL Georgia (3)

     Commonly passed: Devin Lloyd, Jordan Davis, Chris Olave, George Karlaftis, Charles Cross, Malik Willis, Nakobe Dean

Round 2: Jamaree Salyer IOL Georgia (1), Sam Howell QB UNC (2), Nicholas Patit-Frere OT Ohio State (3)

    Commonly passed: Roger McCreary, David Bell, Kyler Gordon, Lewis Cine

Round 3: Leo Chenal LB Wisconsin (1), Channing Tindall LB Georgia (2), Leo Chenal LB Wisconsin (3)

Round 4: Jaylen Watson CB Washington State (1), Josh Jobe CB Alabama (2), Jack Coan QB Notre Dame (3)

Round 7: MarQuan McCall IDL Kentucky (1), Michael Woods II WR Oklahoma (1), Noah Elliss IDL Idaho (2), Obinna Eze OT TCU (2), Kyler McMichael CB UNC (3), Charleston Rambo WR Miami (3)

Again no real standout drafts on the bunch.

So aggregating this:

Round 1: QBx5, Edge 1, LB 1, OL 1, DL 1

Round 2: LB x2, EDGE/DL x3, OL x2, HB, 1, WR 1, QB 1

Round 3: CB, EDGE, OL x4, LB x3

Round 4: HB x2, OL x2, CB x3, WR, QB

Round 6: OL x3

Round 7: ED x2, CB x5, QB, OL x4, WR x4, HB, DL x2

So aggregating that:

RD 1: QB

RD 2: Front 7

RD 3: OL

Rd 4: DB

Round 7: CB, WR, OL

I would hate a draft like that.

[warfelg]

27 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

I am in no hurry to cut Schobert. FA doesn't start until next week. In honesty, there is no reason to do so right now. But if they believe that Spillane is the #2 next to Bush, then there is also no reason to keep Schobert around. Rob was taking snaps from him last year anyway. They can always draft/get a FA to replace Spillane as the starter, but if the reason for not cutting Schobert is to not eliminate a position -- he would actually have to hold that position in the first place. The way the treated it at the end of the year, I am not sure that's the case. 

I would be curious to know, however, how afraid of Bush rebounding they are. Maybe they are not considering keeping Schobert NEXT to Bush....but rather as a potential competition/replacement for him. I am literally just thinking out loud on that as I type, but I probably won't stop thinking about that if he remains on the roster after the start of FA. 

I was thinking this same thing as I was reading your first paragraph.  I think they want to upgrade next to Schobert, and the reason they kept Bush in over Schobert was trying to get Bush going.

[warfelg]

16 minutes ago, 43M said:

I wasnt really trying to change your opinion.

I was asking you to provide a factual assessment of what Schobert has to offer and what benefit keeping him around actually has.

I gave the benefit to you in my first post.  Cutting him now doesn't really give any help.  ILB is a need either way.  Cutting him now forces us to have to be in early FA getting one.  Keeping him now allows us to set our price for one and sticking to it.

[warfelg]

36 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

My question is always are coaches maximizing talent: I think Coach O checks that box. Our ILB position has pretty much been 1 highly drafted guy and then matching qualities next to him. From Timmons, to Shazier, and then to Bush. 

But lining up next to them were the likes of Vince Williams, Tyler Matakevich, Robert Spillane. A 6th, 7th, and UDFA. They all do play good football, but physical limitations hold them back. 

Bush is kinda the exception, IMO. He IS talented and had decent production/play year 1 and before injury in year 2. There have been some exceptions surrounding and compounding his issues last year. But Shazier and Timmons were good players and they do maximize the abilities in that second spot. I don't think it's coaching. Since Jerry took over the ILB job, we have drafted 4 ILB - Bush, Tyler, UG3, and Buddy Johnson. We will see what steps Buddy Johnson takes and if Bush can rebound, but I wouldn't be looking to change coaches....yet. 

So my question becomes: Why hasn't it been more of a priority?  Do they think Coach O can coach them up that much?

[AFF]

19 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I gave the benefit to you in my first post.  Cutting him now doesn't really give any help.  ILB is a need either way.  Cutting him now forces us to have to be in early FA getting one.  Keeping him now allows us to set our price for one and sticking to it.

This...

[Dcash4]

15 minutes ago, warfelg said:

So my question becomes: Why hasn't it been more of a priority?  Do they think Coach O can coach them up that much?

IMO, its two things: 1) Asset management and 2) Positional structure

1) In terms of assets, you have 22+ positions to fill, you can't put all your high end draft assets in one position basket, especially a basket that (leading to point 2) can come off the field and sub in and out based on need. If you have a lead/stud ILB, you shouldn't overdraft or throw additional assets to it, rather take chances and fill by quantities not necessarily qualities. 

So we had Timmons...you don't need to take another ILB until his time is nearly over. Then we took Shazier. We didn't need another lead ILB until he was gone. We take Bush...hopefully...we shouldn't need to overdraft that position. You have the availability to draft/find assets that are complimentary or take flyers on guys like UG3 with the profile and hope they pan out. 

Same thing that really happened with the OL for the longest time. We had 2 first rounders and 1 second rounder across 5 positions. Then we net a UDFA in Foster that worked out and we had 4 positions taken care of. We take a bunch of lower draft/UDFA flyers and we actually hit on them. We didn't ever NEED to spend more high end assets on a position group that was taken care of and top heavy in assets. 

2) The second spot at ILB is so flexible now. You can find a run stopper early and drop a S in the box on passing situations. You can really leave that spot open to scheme, group, or situation. I do think they maximized Vince Williams and I think the same thing of Spillane, but his situation has been vastly different due to the issues in the last two years with health and other at the lead ILB spot. 

I don't think that means you avoid the position -- if Bush was a stud and we had the opportunity to take another stud who fell to 20, great. But I don't think you should actively look to throw more high end assets to the position when other positions need assets too. In large part, I think this strategy has been successful, but the injuries and Bush's regression emphasis the importance of that lead spot. 

[jebrick]

55 minutes ago, warfelg said:

So I wanted to try something different on the mock simulators. Instead of picking for the Steelers, I want to let the computer control it.  3 sites, 3 runs, 3 results.  Figured then I could use the common result of that to build out what the draft should look like.  My general rule of thumb is I'll take the Lions or Jaguars and do a BPA to not mess with the draft board too much (I picked these two teams as they need everything so BPA is a good bet for their draft).

 

It seems that the draft simulators do not think the Steelers need a DT

[warfelg]

5 minutes ago, jebrick said:

It seems that the draft simulators do not think the Steelers need a DT

I lumped all DL together.  THere were a mix of 0T and 3T.

[warfelg]

17 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

IMO, its two things: 1) Asset management and 2) Positional structure

1) In terms of assets, you have 22+ positions to fill, you can't put all your high end draft assets in one position basket, especially a basket that (leading to point 2) can come off the field and sub in and out based on need. If you have a lead/stud ILB, you shouldn't overdraft or throw additional assets to it, rather take chances and fill by quantities not necessarily qualities. 

So we had Timmons...you don't need to take another ILB until his time is nearly over. Then we took Shazier. We didn't need another lead ILB until he was gone. We take Bush...hopefully...we shouldn't need to overdraft that position. You have the availability to draft/find assets that are complimentary or take flyers on guys like UG3 with the profile and hope they pan out. 

Same thing that really happened with the OL for the longest time. We had 2 first rounders and 1 second rounder across 5 positions. Then we net a UDFA in Foster that worked out and we had 4 positions taken care of. We take a bunch of lower draft/UDFA flyers and we actually hit on them. We didn't ever NEED to spend more high end assets on a position group that was taken care of and top heavy in assets. 

2) The second spot at ILB is so flexible now. You can find a run stopper early and drop a S in the box on passing situations. You can really leave that spot open to scheme, group, or situation. I do think they maximized Vince Williams and I think the same thing of Spillane, but his situation has been vastly different due to the issues in the last two years with health and other at the lead ILB spot. 

I don't think that means you avoid the position -- if Bush was a stud and we had the opportunity to take another stud who fell to 20, great. But I don't think you should actively look to throw more high end assets to the position when other positions need assets too. In large part, I think this strategy has been successful, but the injuries and Bush's regression emphasis the importance of that lead spot. 

Being a 3-4 and using 2-4 it's imperative to have 2.  But outside of Shazier, Timmons, Bush; it's been a bunch of day 3 and UDFA picks thrown at the position.  Nothing wrong with a day 2 picks put into it.

[Dcash4]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

Nothing wrong with a day 2 picks put into it.

I don't disagree at all (going back to my completely overdrafting of receivers in the top 60 issue being a big mark here). But I also think the strategy to this point has been fine. Injuries and Bush's inability to rebound are what really drove home the issue inside the last two years. My moral of the story is that I don't necessarily see either the coaching or the strategy of how they built the positions group as a problem...yet. 

I do expect them to build around Bush this year with a decent ILB to play next to him. But IMO, it will just continue the cycle of finding that big time asset nex

[warfelg]

Just now, Dcash4 said:

I don't disagree at all (going back to my completely overdrafting of receivers in the top 60 issue being a big mark here). But I also think the strategy to this point has been fine. Injuries and Bush's inability to rebound are what really drove home the issue inside the last two years. My moral of the story is that I don't necessarily see either the coaching or the strategy of how they built the positions group as a problem...yet. 

I do expect them to build around Bush this year with a decent ILB to play next to him. But IMO, it will just continue the cycle of finding that big time asset nex

Eh, I think the Farrior-Foote pairing got it right.  Two just good solid starters rather than trying to find that guy and filling in next to him.  I felt the same way with Timmons-Foote.  Just two super solid don't make mistake LB'rs.  Give me two of those.

[cjfollett]

11 minutes ago, jebrick said:

It seems that the draft simulators do not think the Steelers need a DT

On paper, the Steelers are set at D line for 2022. Looking ahead to 2023 is a much different story. I'm not sure how many simulators look beyond the current year.

[jebrick]

1 hour ago, warfelg said:

I lumped all DL together.  THere were a mix of 0T and 3T.

It was more about who they passed on at the Steeler picks.

[warfelg]

2 minutes ago, jebrick said:

It was more about who they passed on at the Steeler picks.

Oh yea. They really consider immediate needs. The thing has Tuitt and Alualu under contract so it’s a later need.