State of the Steelers

[warfelg]

Sounds like the Fields market might be a 3 or 4.

[MOSteelers56]

3 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Sounds like the Fields market might be a 3 or 4.

I'd do a 3rd and a 4th for him, but it'd be even cooler if it were just one of those. 

[August4th]

a 4th that could turn into a 2nd for fields. I'd be all over that. 

[jebrick]

39 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Sounds like the Fields market might be a 3 or 4.

That is what GMs were saying in December when asked.

Edited March 1 by jebrick

[C$!]

23 hours ago, jebrick said:

The key ( to me) is the playbook.  If they throw out the playbook then KP, Fields, Cousins and Joe Montana are in the same situation.  In that case I would bet on Joe and Cousins.  If they keep the playbook then it is a lost cause.

I mean yeah this kind of has to be assumed because as you said, there are not many QB's that could have overcome the Canada playbook.

You have to think that was a pre-requisite for the new OC.  

[warfelg]

Had a Chiefs fan friend toss this out there:

Diontae Johnson and 120 and 2025 5th

for

L’Darius Snead and 95

[jebrick]

5 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Had a Chiefs fan friend toss this out there:

Diontae Johnson and 120 and 2025 5th

for

L’Darius Snead and 95

I would not be able to hit accept fast enough

[43M]

4 hours ago, warfelg said:

Replace 3 with 2 and take out the force to use the arm and it’s the exact same thing people are saying on Kenny. 

Fact is Fields upside is higher than Kenny’s if they both do these things. That’s why I take the shot. Same floor, massively different ceilings. 

Again. Floor is the same. Different ceilings. And that’s what a bunch of us are saying. 

That’s the way I feel about options like Mason, Tannehill, Wilson, Cousins. They just lack the upside. 

And my point is, I believe many of you are overrating his remaining upside, or rather, his chances of coming anywhere close to fulfilling the upside you believe he has.

Players who progress so little in their first 3 years do not TYPICALLY get significantly better in subsequent years.   Sure, there are exceptions, but thats exactly what they are....exceptions.

[warfelg]

35 minutes ago, jebrick said:

I would not be able to hit accept fast enough

That’s what I felt too but he said he thinks DJ is more valuable than Snead. 

[warfelg]

38 minutes ago, 43M said:

And my point is, I believe many of you are overrating his remaining upside, or rather, his chances of coming anywhere close to fulfilling the upside you believe he has.

Players who progress so little in their first 3 years do not TYPICALLY get significantly better in subsequent years.   Sure, there are exceptions, but thats exactly what they are....exceptions.

I’m curious on how so. Like, I feel like most of us that wouldn’t mind trading for him feel like he has more upside than Kenny, and that slim chance exception is worth it because we don’t feel Kenny is able to do that, and see limited options the next few years. 
 

And IMO I don’t feel like I’m overrating his upside. I think there’s way too much fixation on some saying like he’s a hidden star or something. I mean the fact is as a passer it’s about neck and neck with Kenny and as a runner/athlete he’s heads and shoulders better. I just don’t know what you can say about that other than their floors are similar right now and Fields ceiling is higher. 

Edited March 1 by warfelg

[C$!]

3 hours ago, warfelg said:

Replace 3 with 2 and take out the force to use the arm and it’s the exact same thing people are saying on Kenny. 

Fact is Fields upside is higher than Kenny’s if they both do these things. That’s why I take the shot. Same floor, massively different ceilings. 

Again. Floor is the same. Different ceilings. And that’s what a bunch of us are saying. 

That’s the way I feel about options like Mason, Tannehill, Wilson, Cousins. They just lack the upside. 

I hear what you are saying but it's also very easy to be seduced by someone's 'upside' or potential. It's the same way teams can overvalue draft picks (in all sports). There is always this assumption that the player will always fully develop and become the best version of themselves. Most of the time, it doesn't happen. 

I do think it's concerning that Fields has not shown any progression in his time in the NFL. It doesn't mean he won't or can't but it's something that has to be factored into the discussion. I think that because Fields is a dynamic athlete when he flashes, he has flashed big. I think the issue with Fields has been he's been very boom-or-bust. I mean last year he had more games passing for less than 200 yards than he did passing for over 250 (6-3) and half of his 16 TD's came in two games. 
 

[AFF]

8 minutes ago, warfelg said:

That’s what I felt too but he said he thinks DJ is more valuable than Snead. 

He does too much nose candy

[warfelg]

7 minutes ago, C$! said:

I hear what you are saying but it's also very easy to be seduced by someone's 'upside' or potential. It's the same way teams can overvalue draft picks (in all sports). There is always this assumption that the player will always fully develop and become the best version of themselves. Most of the time, it doesn't happen. 

I do think it's concerning that Fields has not shown any progression in his time in the NFL. It doesn't mean he won't or can't but it's something that has to be factored into the discussion. I think that because Fields is a dynamic athlete when he flashes, he has flashed big. I think the issue with Fields has been he's been very boom-or-bust. I mean last year he had more games passing for less than 200 yards than he did passing for over 250 (6-3) and half of his 16 TD's came in two games. 
 

We can look at it this way:

You have 4 routes to a QB. 1 draft one high. 2 trade for a star who wants out. 3 trade up a good amount in the draft. 4 take the chance on one that a team decides to go a different direction. 

Given they still want to compete, 1 is off the board unless you have injuries all over. 2 is unlikely as usually teams aren’t in the business of letting good ones walk. 3 would cost way too much this year. So that leaves option 4. Take a chance. 

[MOSteelers56]

I might be off base on this idea, so correct me if I'm wrong. I would say, even if Fields doesn't improve a lot, he's still better than Kenny. His "average" seems better than Kenny's and his "elite" is way better than Kenny's. Arm talent wise but also his athleticism is so much better. Our run game would instantly be improved with a dual threat QB. Even one who wasn't the best passer in the game. Now, is that good enough to win a SB? Doubtful, but like @warfelg said, there isn't a whole lot of other ways to get someone like that. I won't be broken hearted if we don't get him, but I'd be pretty excited if we did. Just to make the games more enjoyable. 

[jebrick]

5 minutes ago, MOSteelers56 said:

I might be off base on this idea, so correct me if I'm wrong. I would say, even if Fields doesn't improve a lot, he's still better than Kenny. His "average" seems better than Kenny's and his "elite" is way better than Kenny's. Arm talent wise but also his athleticism is so much better. Our run game would instantly be improved with a dual threat QB. Even one who wasn't the best passer in the game. Now, is that good enough to win a SB? Doubtful, but like @warfelg said, there isn't a whole lot of other ways to get someone like that. I won't be broken hearted if we don't get him, but I'd be pretty excited if we did. Just to make the games more enjoyable. 

As I said, for a 3rd or 4th rounder, I would do it