Steelers sign QB Mitch Trubisky

[jrry32]

I hope the Steelers have a better plan than Trubisky.

[SkippyX]

2 hours ago, wwhickok said:

No it isn't. At best it's a lateral move, but I don't see him as anything as good as Ben  

Ben was a much better QB. Ben's a HoF player. Not in the last 2 years though. Dude was shot.

[Forge]

36 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I hope the Steelers have a better plan than Trubisky.

I feel like they may be okay with accepting the likelihood of a soft reset year

[Teen Girl Squad]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

I feel like they may be okay with accepting the likelihood of a soft reset year

This, especially given the stacked AFC, mediocre QB class and the rising cap starting next year. Not a bad time to bide your time. The low base salary makes his contract easy top move on from/easier to keep him as a backup next year. 

[CKSteeler]

There are some people who think the Steelers roster is way better than it is posting in this thread. Not many, but a couple. The defense will take care of things, as someone said on the last page? They were 14th in DVOA last year and dead last in rushing defense. Historically bad. They could lose half their starting secondary, probably at least losing what is still their best CB. They have a gaping hole inside. The DL depends on two aging veterans, one of whom had a career ending injury last year. And then there's a third guy who may or may not actually want to play football again. 

The defense is basically Watt, Fitzpatrick, and Heyward. A couple of JAG role players to supplement them and then some real bums.

The OL is a mess.

The WR's are inconsistent head cases and nothing special to begin with.

Your best offensive weapon is a RB who broke like one 20 yard run all of last season.

And for all the talk about how Ben was done, who think that passing stats encapsulate everything a guy brings to the table, they're going to be sorely mistaken. 6 4th quarter comebacks. Yea, the offense was bad. But Roethlisberger knew how to win games. It's why he's a HOF'er. Mitch Trubisky can put up a similar stat line, without a significantly improved roster around him he's not duplicating what Roethlisberger did last year.

[AkronsWitness]

7 hours ago, DudeWhat??? said:

It's hard for us Steeler fans.....our team usually develops and invest from the inside. We rarely make big trade or FA signings and we are never anywhere near the top ten of the draft. As this arms race is brewing..sure I would have liked to make a play for Russel or Rogers and Watson.....but I don't want us to turn into one of those teams that's overdrafting medicore qbs every other year without a team around them, or a team giving everything for a mediocre QB via trade. I want us to remain the boring team we are. The team that went to the super bowl with Neil O'Donnell, dominated our division consistently with the likes of kordell Steward and Tommy Maddox, won games with back ups like Duck Hodges. Relax, take a deep breath... reality: Mitch is a more than capable stop gap....the next two years are going to be loaded drafts QB wise...this year not one QB is 1st round worthy. I like this move. 

As somebody who follows the Broncos and has watched 8 different starting QBs in the past 5 years squander a yearly top 5-10 defense and a offense loaded with skill position players---it doesnt matter what your roster looks like if the QB sucks. You guys learned this with Rudolph and Duck and Haskins, ect.

Great QBs like Burrow, Herbert, ect can elevate bad rosters. However, great rosters cannot stop bad QBs from being bad. Its a 1 way street.

Spending too much time building a roster around a QB To Be Named Later leads you to NFL purgatory of 7-9 every year and you will never be bad enough to get a chance at a elite QB in the draft, but you will also never be good enough to make the playoffs.

What the NFL has taught me from watching numerous rebuilds is that you either have a QB or you dont. You better do everything in your power no matter the draft pick cost to secure one 

Edited March 15, 2022 by AkronsWitness

[Forge]

We still don't have numbers on this? Feel like it's going to be a solid deal for Pitt

[SkippyX]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

We still don't have numbers on this? Feel like it's going to be a solid deal for Pitt

I saw them somewhere (CBS Sports maybe)  Something like 2 for 14.25 with up to 27 more in incentives

That's not that rare for QBs to get paid as a journeyman but have a provision for if they start a bunch and play well.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2022-nfl-free-agency-winners-and-losers-jaguars-embark-on-shopping-spree-on-first-day-of-legal-tampering/

 

No idea on the specifics of the incentives

[AFF]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

We still don't have numbers on this? Feel like it's going to be a solid deal for Pitt

2/$14 mill….another $13 mill in incentives but some of that is make All-Pro etc etc.

[Forge]

6 minutes ago, AFF said:

2/$14 mill….another $13 mill in incentives but some of that is make All-Pro etc etc.

Yeah, that's nice for Pitt. 

[DudeWhat???]

1 hour ago, AkronsWitness said:

As somebody who follows the Broncos and has watched 8 different starting QBs in the past 5 years squander a yearly top 5-10 defense and a offense loaded with skill position players---it doesnt matter what your roster looks like if the QB sucks. You guys learned this with Rudolph and Duck and Haskins, ect.

Great QBs like Burrow, Herbert, ect can elevate bad rosters. However, great rosters cannot stop bad QBs from being bad. Its a 1 way street.

Spending too much time building a roster around a QB To Be Named Later leads you to NFL purgatory of 7-9 every year and you will never be bad enough to get a chance at a elite QB in the draft, but you will also never be good enough to make the playoffs.

What the NFL has taught me from watching numerous rebuilds is that you either have a QB or you dont. You better do everything in your power no matter the draft pick cost to secure one 

NFL History has taught me that the teams that think QB first and build later often fail... Often find themselves selecting top 10 every other year or so. We learned that we almost made the playoffs with Duck. That's the entire point. We have no desire to pick in the top 5 or even 10... Tomlin told chase young that as a compliment to his face. It would be ridiculous to overdraft in a draft where the first round qbs would be third round qbs the next 2 years. It's wise to give yourself flexibility and fill holes through the draft...you cannot fill those holes if you lack flexibility and are pigeonholed. How much better was tim couch than Tommy Maddox really? Or kordell Steward? NFL had taught me guts like Trent dilfer, Brad Johnson, Nick foles,  Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, Jim McMahon can get super bowl rings. 

[AkronsWitness]

Just now, DudeWhat??? said:

NFL History has taught me that the teams that think QB first and build later often fail... Often find themselves selecting top 10 every other year or so. We learned that we almost made the playoffs with Duck. That's the entire point. We have no desire to pick in the top 5 or even 10... Tomlin told chase young that as a compliment to his face. It would be ridiculous to overdraft in a draft where the first round qbs would be third round qbs the next 2 years. It's wise to give yourself flexibility and fill holes through the draft...you cannot fill those holes if you lack flexibility and are pigeonholed. How much better was tim couch than Tommy Maddox really? Or kordell Steward? NFL had taught me guts like Trent dilfer, Brad Johnson, Nick foles,  Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, Jim McMahon can get super bowl rings. 

So your strategy is build a good roster and hope you get lucky by finding a Russell Wilson type in the 3rd round?

[DudeWhat???]

8 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said:

So your strategy is build a good roster and hope you get lucky by finding a Russell Wilson type in the 3rd round?

My strategy is stay competitive while looking for a franchise QB via draft, FA or trade. Where was Aaron Rodgers, Lamar Jackson, Teddy Bridgewater, Joe flacco drafted in the first round again?... towards the bottom. Who won the super bowl last year? A QB who consistently fail to up lift a Detroit lions team...plugged into a team already built. 

[jebrick]

6 hours ago, AkronsWitness said:

As somebody who follows the Broncos and has watched 8 different starting QBs in the past 5 years squander a yearly top 5-10 defense and a offense loaded with skill position players---it doesnt matter what your roster looks like if the QB sucks. You guys learned this with Rudolph and Duck and Haskins, ect.

Great QBs like Burrow, Herbert, ect can elevate bad rosters. However, great rosters cannot stop bad QBs from being bad. Its a 1 way street.

Spending too much time building a roster around a QB To Be Named Later leads you to NFL purgatory of 7-9 every year and you will never be bad enough to get a chance at a elite QB in the draft, but you will also never be good enough to make the playoffs.

What the NFL has taught me from watching numerous rebuilds is that you either have a QB or you dont. You better do everything in your power no matter the draft pick cost to secure one 

Unless your FO is bold enough to move up and get that QB when you identify them (KC).  It is still one of the better ways to long term success.  Either you luck into the QB like Wilson, Brees, Brady and Rogers ( all of whom were draft 20+) or you move up to get them like KC.  Putting a rookie QB on a bad team generally leads to frustration.

 

I am not saying the Steelers FO is bold.  They are, in fact, very conservative in their draft actions.  They just happened to be be just bad enough to have a chance to draft Roethisberger in 2004.  But I would still rather build a better team then get a QB rather than get a QB on a bad team and waste years trying to plug the holes.

[SMashMouthMike]

46 minutes ago, jebrick said:

Unless your FO is bold enough to move up and get that QB when you identify them (KC).  It is still one of the better ways to long term success.  Either you luck into the QB like Wilson, Brees, Brady and Rogers ( all of whom were draft 20+) or you move up to get them like KC.  Putting a rookie QB on a bad team generally leads to frustration.

 

I am not saying the Steelers FO is bold.  They are, in fact, very conservative in their draft actions.  They just happened to be be just bad enough to have a chance to draft Roethisberger in 2004.  But I would still rather build a better team then get a QB rather than get a QB on a bad team and waste years trying to plug the holes.

Yeah, this. Signing Trubisky is like punting. It’s living to fight another day. We got holes everywhere, so as long as they don’t double down and reach for a qb early in this draft, we should be in decent shape in 2 or 3 years. 
 

There’s nothing we could have done to realistically contend for a Super Bowl next season. But we could have F’d our future. This doesn’t do that imo. 

Edited March 15, 2022 by SMashMouthMike