2022 Off-Season Thread: The Dead szn...

[VigilantZombie]

Just now, warfelg said:

Steelers have a little over $20 mil in remaining space:

We need $4mil of that for the draft class.

We typically save $8mil for in season moves and roll over.

That means about $7-8mil left of FA spending.

With that 7-8M I expect us to sign someone like Greg Ward at WR, or someone even cheaper. A depth CB, and honestly that's it. 

[VigilantZombie]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

QB I think we're worse off in name value but better off in fit.

RG is lateral move at best.

Secondary is definitely worse right now.

You might be right on the QB. Right now, I'm really low on that position. Hopefully I end up being wrong.

But for the Steeler fans that don't seem to get it. 9-8, getting blown out in the playoffs, it's not success. It shouldn't be acceptabɔe and while I'm not on the fire Tomlin wagon it isn't something that should be providing him job security. 

[warfelg]

1 minute ago, wwhickok said:

With that 7-8M I expect us to sign someone like Greg Ward at WR, or someone even cheaper. A depth CB, and honestly that's it. 

It could change with a Schobert cut ($9mil), Banner cut ($5mil), TJ Watt/Cam Heyward restructures ($12mil).

So there's time to still majorly impact that.  And usually the restructures wait so I"m ok there.  But the fact that you can cut Schobert and Banner, improve the secondary and ILBs now, and you haven't yet; but at the same time you are leaking to the media that you think this is an elite defense that can win and that's why there's a comfort in signing Trubisky? What?

[Dcash4]

5 minutes ago, warfelg said:

1 year, $10.5mil. That's basically what we're gonna pay Chuks.  Is he worth that?

...over 2 years. You left that part out. 

No, I wouldn't have paid Chuks that. I have said this part now multiple times. My problem with your issue is that you are afraid of cap implications when the entire NFL is not and acting like its a Steelers only problem. Looking at the other contracts going around the NFL teams have clearly anticipated the jump in cap and are willing to go up. 

It seems to me from reading the rumors they offered him a lower deal, his market (at 24) was higher, so they created a flexible deal to move a higher number over multiple years to secure him. 

Do I like the number? No
Would I have done it? I don't think so, though I strongly dislike this years T FA class
Do I like the way the structured it? Yeah, part I think makes sense. 

[VigilantZombie]

Just now, warfelg said:

It could change with a Schobert cut ($9mil), Banner cut ($5mil), TJ Watt/Cam Heyward restructures ($12mil).

So there's time to still majorly impact that.  And usually the restructures wait so I"m ok there.  But the fact that you can cut Schobert and Banner, improve the secondary and ILBs now, and you haven't yet; but at the same time you are leaking to the media that you think this is an elite defense that can win and that's why there's a comfort in signing Trubisky? What?

I mean...Schoebert should already have been cut, and honestly Banner should be too 

And that part about Mitch, that's what I'm saying. Its quite embarrassing too that Najee came put and talked about these QBs he hoped Came to Pittsburgh and Cam Heyward was talking about making a run at a SB and being able to win with the right Rookie, and they sogn...Trubisky.

[warfelg]

1 minute ago, wwhickok said:

You might be right on the QB. Right now, I'm really low on that position. Hopefully I end up being wrong.

But for the Steeler fans that don't seem to get it. 9-8, getting blown out in the playoffs, it's not success. It shouldn't be acceptabɔe and while I'm not on the fire Tomlin wagon it isn't something that should be providing him job security. 

And this is why I'm frustrated.  It's not that it's a transition year.  It's that we're "selling out" to make an average team in that transition year because "bottoming out" doesn't work.

Despite the fact I've never argued for "bottoming out" it's been painted that way.  I'd be fine with a 7-10 year but have an average to above average running game, a good defense, a strong line, so we can end up drafting 10-16.  Because that's the sweet spot you need to be in to trade up for one of the better QB's in a strong QB draft.  It's infinitely harder to move up from 17-25 for that top 10 pick to get that QB.  So doing all of this to end up at 9-8 and maybe make the playoffs isn't helping.

[jebrick]

I would rather the Steelers sign Fa to the $C2 contracts than $C3.  Chuks and Cole are both young players which are getting $C2.  I really wish Chuks was cheaper but it is the market and they did not want a larger hole at OT

[VigilantZombie]

Just now, Dcash4 said:

...over 2 years. You left that part out. 

No, I wouldn't have paid Chuks that. I have said this part now multiple times. My problem with your issue is that you are afraid of cap implications when the entire NFL is not and acting like its a Steelers only problem. Looking at the other contracts going around the NFL teams have clearly anticipated the jump in cap and are willing to go up. 

It seems to me from reading the rumors they offered him a lower deal, his market (at 24) was higher, so they created a flexible deal to move a higher number over multiple years to secure him. 

Do I like the number? No
Would I have done it? I don't think so, though I strongly dislike this years T FA class
Do I like the way the structured it? Yeah, part I think makes sense. 

Speaking just for myself I'm not afraid of cap implications, I don't think he deserved that contract.. 

What I took away from this is, after multiple posts of you telling us we are wrong and you are right, you basically agree with what we have been saying the whole time. 

Make that make sense.

[VigilantZombie]

Just now, jebrick said:

I would rather the Steelers sign Fa to the $C2 contracts than $C3.  Chuks and Cole are both young players which are getting $C2.  I really wish Chuks was cheaper but it is the market and they did not want a larger hole at OT

If the market for mediocrity was too high, then trade up in the draft and get a Cross, Neal, or Ekwonu who is instantly better than Chuks for far less on more years.

Forcing a contract for a mediocre player because someone else is stupid enough to over pay him isn't a good reason to overpay him yourself 

[VigilantZombie]

7 minutes ago, warfelg said:

And this is why I'm frustrated.  It's not that it's a transition year.  It's that we're "selling out" to make an average team in that transition year because "bottoming out" doesn't work.

Despite the fact I've never argued for "bottoming out" it's been painted that way.  I'd be fine with a 7-10 year but have an average to above average running game, a good defense, a strong line, so we can end up drafting 10-16.  Because that's the sweet spot you need to be in to trade up for one of the better QB's in a strong QB draft.  It's infinitely harder to move up from 17-25 for that top 10 pick to get that QB.  So doing all of this to end up at 9-8 and maybe make the playoffs isn't helping.

 And that is what people need to understand because I am not suggesting tanking  but at some point what we are doing does not make us better, it has not made us better, and it will not make us better.

[warfelg]

Just now, Dcash4 said:

...over 2 years. You left that part out. 

No, I wouldn't have paid Chuks that. I have said this part now multiple times. My problem with your issue is that you are afraid of cap implications when the entire NFL is not and acting like its a Steelers only problem. Looking at the other contracts going around the NFL teams have clearly anticipated the jump in cap and are willing to go up. 

It seems to me from reading the rumors they offered him a lower deal, his market (at 24) was higher, so they created a flexible deal to move a higher number over multiple years to secure him. 

Do I like the number? No
Would I have done it? I don't think so, though I strongly dislike this years T FA class
Do I like the way the structured it? Yeah, part I think makes sense. 

I left it out because....hear me out it doesn't matter.

You think $10.5 mil for 1 year of Okorafor is too much.  So at that point it doesn't matter how it's structured, it's an overpay.  At this point it's justifying a bad deal by bringing up the structure.  Like that's the point you are making that no one else that dislikes Okorafor being back isn't making.  We don't care about the structure because the amount tied no matter how structured is a deal that we all think is an overpay.  It's an overpay either way.  Chuks is below average.  Should have let him walk.

I also laid out above why I have issues with the structure.  Steelers got good because they were doing things other teams weren't.  Now we operate like everyone else in contract structure. 

[warfelg]

8 minutes ago, jebrick said:

I would rather the Steelers sign Fa to the $C2 contracts than $C3.  Chuks and Cole are both young players which are getting $C2.  I really wish Chuks was cheaper but it is the market and they did not want a larger hole at OT

As long as they are worth it.  Wishing Chuks was cheaper means he wasn't worth it.

[43M]

@Dcash4

These are terrible moves.     If you disagree, so be it, but it comes down to more than just the moves themselves.   its the same cycle and same mistakes being repeated that anger me so much.  The same types of mistakes that have gotten us to this point.

In this case....Beyond the money, its about the opportunity costs.    Chuks is painfully mediocre at best in every aspect of the game.   We resigned him for 3 years to maintain continuity on a line that doesnt DESERVE continuity.   Continuity doesnt mean squat when what you are continuing sucks.    Continuity only matters when you are losing players who provide a valuable asset....which Chuks really doesnt.    i didnt have a problem with him being resigned as a backup, but this is clearly meant for him to be a starter....and based on what?  He has been here for 4 years and barely shown anything of notable value, and when he finally becomes a starter, he doesnt show much....but deserves a decent sized new contract?   Tell me what he did to deserve this?   Tell me what makes sense about this, because I have yet to see you actually explain what aspect of this actually makes sense.    If it were a one or even 2 year deal worth a total of $7 or 8mil, that would be one thing.   He got more than that GUARANTEED.   It makes no ******* sense regardless of how you break it down.     This is not the first time we have given undeserved money to an offensive lineman who sucked, but at least our overall team was in much better shape when we did in the past.    

Chuks is just perpetuating the cycle of mediocrity that this team is stuck in.   Rather than try something different...just keep spinning tires with the same players who have proven they cant cut ot.      Let me know when that works out.    Its one thing to try something different and have it not work out well...because at least youre TRYING.     This team barely tries.   Tomlin and Colbert hardly ever learn from past mistakes, and thats been one of my issues with them for a long time.     I dont expect to have all pros at every position, but reward mediocrity never works out....and lets not act like Chuks has shown enough to have optimism about his potential.   He hasnt.

Trubisky and Cole are just more mediocre moves.     Trubisky shouldnt have gotten much more than he got with the Bills last year.  He didnt improve his value.   $4m a year with incentives shouldve been the absolute max.   Cole is Sean Mahan 2.0.  Nothing more.

Im not expect us to go out and sign a bunch of pro bowlers like some people....but the OLine needed a difference maker or 2, and instead, we gave a guy who isnt a difference maker a big raise and another guy who isnt that good a chance to be a starter.

You can defend these moves all you want....but stop pretending we are all wrong and like we should just "wait and see".   I dont need to wait and see.   These moves suck, regardless of how the money is structured.  

[43M]

13 minutes ago, jebrick said:

I would rather the Steelers sign Fa to the $C2 contracts than $C3.  Chuks and Cole are both young players which are getting $C2.  I really wish Chuks was cheaper but it is the market and they did not want a larger hole at OT

Larger hole?    What exactly does he bring?

Chuks is terrible in the run game and is inconsistent at best in pass pro.

Not saying you cant do worse....but Id certainly rather try something different than continue doing the same things that havent worked in the past.

[warfelg]

I think what's getting lost and @wwhickokwill agree:

Doesn't matter how it's structured because we all agree that Chuks isn't worth that the dollar value is.  Whether it's a 1/$10.5mil or 3/$28mil hitting full length/value; Chuks isn't really worth that.  The issue we're having is that it's ok to overpay because of the structure.