State of the Steelers

[bigben07MVP]

39 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

Exactly.  I think they'd be selling him short, all because his arms are 1 1/8" shorter than you'd like.  Everything I seen and read on him, are that he's athletic, and technically proficient at OT, and if his arms were 34" instead of 32 7/8", he'd likely be in the discussion in the 1st Rd for OT, and pretty much a plug-n-play guy, as well.  NFL players overcome 'physical shortcomings' all the time to excel at their positions. Will it be harder for him to exceed than if he had 34"+ arms??  Sure, but if his technique is sound, has great feet, football IQ, etc., etc., he'd be likely be better than an OT bends and lunges too much, or has slow feet, or poor balance, or inconsistent hand usage, etc.  

But what do I know; I'm certainly not an expert in the area...

It sounds silly, but there is a reason teams use 34 inch arms as a threshold for being an OT. 

And his IOL projection is more than just having short arms. On tape you can tell he is more comfortable playing in a “phone booth,” in tight quarters etc. He is less comfortable playing out in space where longer edge players can get inside his frame (due to his lack of arm length).

He came to Duke is a C and they basically realized after one year he was the best O-Lineman they would have for a few years so they moved him over to LT. If he went to a premier SEC school he would have never moved from IOL. I think he could play RT in a pinch, but he definitely belongs at C or OG full time at the next level. 

[Dcash4]

I genuinely feel like I am on an island taking crazy pills with how many people think this offseason is good strategy. Maybe you are just trying to convince yourself it is? I don't know...nuts. 

The draft has a 30% hit rate for a good draft (2 of 7). Last year 8 players drafted in the third round became their teams starter -- one of which was a kicker. 

We are sitting here saying "no no guys, this is good! We can draft starters in all 5 of our first picks! They played this so well" /s. 

Fit me for a straight jacket for thinking we would've been better off signing a George Fant/La'el Collins and any of the available centers and gone into the draft actually drafting the best players, not specific players at specific positions. And heck, maybe still draft a center if he is the BPA and not have to be forced into extensions for $20M+ with James Daniels. 

The draft is a vehicle to future improvement. We seem to be set on using it for present needs and box checking. Not sure how that tracks as a long term solution.  

[Ward4HOF]

18 minutes ago, bigben07MVP said:

It sounds silly, but there is a reason teams use 34 inch arms as a threshold for being an OT. 

And his IOL projection is more than just having short arms. On tape you can tell he is more comfortable playing in a “phone booth,” in tight quarters etc. He is less comfortable playing out in space where longer edge players can get inside his frame (due to his lack of arm length).

He came to Duke is a C and they basically realized after one year he was the best O-Lineman they would have for a few years so they moved him over to LT. If he went to a premier SEC school he would have never moved from IOL. I think he could play RT in a pinch, but he definitely belongs at C or OG full time at the next level. 

I understand that, but you can't tell me that one inch shorter arms, is more debilitating than all the other necessary traits, like having light feet, being able to maintain a 'straighter' back, dipping their head, etc., etc.  

And another thing, why is Morgan, with exactly the same length arms, not being 'pigeon-holed' into being an IOL prospect?  He's consistently listed as an OT prospect.

I'm not being difficult, and I understand the 'basics' of why, and all that, but there seems to be quite a bit of contradictory opinions on the matter.

Plus, IMO, I think Barton will have a more difficult time being a 6' 5 3/8" Center, where he'll have a tough time getting/staying at the proper pad level in the run game, than he will being an OT with, lets face it, essentially 33" arms.

Edited April 22 by Ward4HOF

[Chieferific]

5 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

I genuinely feel like I am on an island taking crazy pills with how many people think this offseason is good strategy. Maybe you are just trying to convince yourself it is? I don't know...nuts. 

The draft has a 30% hit rate for a good draft (2 of 7). Last year 8 players drafted in the third round became their teams starter -- one of which was a kicker. 

We are sitting here saying "no no guys, this is good! We can draft starters in all 5 of our first picks! They played this so well" /s. 

Fit me for a straight jacket for thinking we would've been better off signing a George Fant/La'el Collins and any of the available centers and gone into the draft actually drafting the best players, not specific players at specific positions. And heck, maybe still draft a center if he is the BPA and not have to be forced into extensions for $20M+ with James Daniels. 

The draft is a vehicle to future improvement. We seem to be set on using it for present needs and box checking. Not sure how that tracks as a long term solution.  

Well they don't NEED 5 starters. 4 at the most. 2 of which (RT/OC) don't usually require "high" draft capital and the 3rd a NCB. WR is the biggest concern due to the historical transition time.  

[Ward4HOF]

12 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

I genuinely feel like I am on an island taking crazy pills with how many people think this offseason is good strategy. Maybe you are just trying to convince yourself it is? I don't know...nuts.

I don't think that is what some here are saying; it's more that not having everything solved before the draft, is not the end of the world.  Many veterans will be cut after the draft, and on into training camp, etc., so there will likely be serviceable vets to be had in these positions.

Also, read an article highlighting the fact that while Herbig is listed as the 1st team Center, it may actually end up being Spencer, who last practiced last season, as a Center--he might be the fallback option...or at least, one of them.

Edited April 22 by Ward4HOF

[warfelg]

2 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

I understand that, but you can't tell me that one inch shorter arms, is more debilitating than all the other necessary traits, like having light feet, being bale to maintain a 'straighter' back, etc., etc.  

And another thing, why is Morgan, with exactly the same length arms, not being 'pigeon-holed' into being an IOL prospect?  He's consistently listed as an OT prospect.

I'm not being difficult, and I understand the 'basics' of why, and all that, but there seems to be quite a bit of contradictory opinions on the matter.

Plus, IMO, I think Barton will have a more difficult time being a 6' 5 3/8" Center, where he'll have a tough time getting/staying at the proper pad level in the run game, than he will being an OT with, lets face it, essentially 33" arms.

Because much much more goes into it than just this stuff.  

For example Graham struggles to open up his hips, doesn't take deep drops and when he does he's in his heels.  His arms don't even play their full length as he tries to body block guys out that far more than arm block them.  His head dips at times out on the edge because he's lunging to make contact.  Plays with a really low pad level for his size that's too low for OT.

Morgan is very clean, understands how to draw guys in without over extending his arms.  Moves on his toes incredibly well.  His hips are really loose and he moves incredibly well to position himself.  Takes big drops without getting out of position, which allows him to make up for his shorter arms so to speak.

[bigben07MVP]

Just now, Ward4HOF said:

I understand that, but you can't tell me that one inch shorter arms, is more debilitating than all the other necessary traits, like having light feet, being bale to maintain a 'straighter' back, etc., etc.  

And another thing, why is Morgan, with exactly the same length arms, not being 'pigeon-holed' into being an IOL prospect?  He's consistently listed as an OT prospect.

I'm not being difficult, and I understand the 'basics' of why, and all that, but there seems to be quite a bit of contradictory opinions on the matter.

Plus, IMO, I think Barton will have a more difficult time being a 6' 5 3/8" Center, where he'll have a tough time getting/staying at the proper pad level in the run game, than he will being an OT with, lets face it, essentially 33" arms.

You are focused on what they can or can’t do and not what are they best at? You are also still focused on arm length with it goes much deeper than that. Where are they more comfortable? What position allows them to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses?

Again - Barton could get by as a tackle, but he’s much better suited to play IOL. And I think he will be excellent there. He’s tremendous when he gets his hands on you, he’s more than athletic enough to get to the 2nd level, and he’s exceptional at turning guys and creating running lanes. Not to mention the football IQ, leadership qualities etc that it takes to be a C at the NFL. He’s the total package.

Do you want to take Barton and have him be a B- tackle or a A- to A+ center? 

I can’t comment as much on Morgan other than I have definitely heard from several draft guys that he projects to be at best an OT/OG tweener. 

[Ward4HOF]

2 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Because much much more goes into it than just this stuff.  

For example Graham struggles to open up his hips, doesn't take deep drops and when he does he's in his heels.  His arms don't even play their full length as he tries to body block guys out that far more than arm block them.  His head dips at times out on the edge because he's lunging to make contact.  Plays with a really low pad level for his size that's too low for OT.

Morgan is very clean, understands how to draw guys in without over extending his arms.  Moves on his toes incredibly well.  His hips are really loose and he moves incredibly well to position himself.  Takes big drops without getting out of position, which allows him to make up for his shorter arms so to speak.

That makes sense, then...but I've also read that Barton played very well at OT the last few seasons, but hey, if what you say is true, then I can better understand it.  Thanks.

[warfelg]

5 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

I don't think that is what some here are saying; it's more that not having everything solved before the draft, is not the end of the world.  Many veterans will be cut after the draft, and on into training camp, etc., so there will likely be serviceable vets to be had in these positions.

Yup yup yup.  

I'd argue what's good is there's a conceited effort to get younger and incest better at positions that we ignored for a while.  I've said this before, but it's nice going into the draft without the obvious "here's who we're drafting" because of inaction and resignings with who we let walked.  I personally think it's nice going into the draft being a little bit the wildcard team.  We were that last year too with CB, OT, DL where we knew some combo of the 3 needed to be taken but we had no idea what order or how it was going to be handled. 

I feel the same this year. IOL, OT, WR, CB are going to be early picks, but who knows the order.  I personally think this is a good way to team build because we aren't forcing any player or position, rather we're going with an ability to go BPA at some of the deepest positions in this draft without having to target one of them and making it easy to "**** block" us from a player we want.

3 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

That makes sense, then...but I've also read that Barton played very well at OT the last few seasons, but hey, if what you say is true, then I can better understand it.  Thanks.

He played well there in a conference where their best pass rusher over that time is an NFL backup at best.

[Dcash4]

6 minutes ago, warfelg said:

but it's nice going into the draft without the obvious "here's who we're drafting" because of inaction and resignings with who we let walked

I'm sorry, you have said this before and I ignored it, but it doesn't make sense. 

You think we are less likely to be obvious because of our inability to fill out the roster? That's backwards. 

Last year we had the players they intended to be their starting tackles on roster. They had their starting DL set. They signed Patrick Peterson and had starter Levi Wallace back. They didn't have glaring holes. 

Kwon Alexander was a late off-season signing...at a position we already signed 2 starters at. 

Again -- I am just at a loss. Last year was what good looks like. Fill your spots, draft your future, and sign talent for depth. This year....isn't that. 

 

[bigben07MVP]

3 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

Again -- I am just at a loss. Last year was what good looks like. Fill your spots, draft your future, and sign talent for depth. This year....isn't that. 

You’re right, thank god we signed Patrick Peterson and brought Levi Wallace back so we could check that box before the draft last year. 

[warfelg]

4 minutes ago, bigben07MVP said:

You’re right, thank god we signed Patrick Peterson and brought Levi Wallace back so we could check that box before the draft last year. 

And Dan Moore - who we are basically trying to actively replace this year.  And Cole - who we mocked all reason and want to replace (yet having him makes you feel somewhat better).  

[Dcash4]

3 minutes ago, bigben07MVP said:

You’re right, thank god we signed Patrick Peterson and brought Levi Wallace back so we could check that box before the draft last year. 

JFC, you are free to go back and check my post history on my feelings regarding that signing. But the fact of the matter is that they signed someone they liked to start. They liked him so much they checked that box on day 1. 

Not having something work out isn't the same as having a bad plan. 

In the same way that having things work isn't the same as having a good plan. 

....which is where we are. 

[warfelg]

Levi Wallace signed to a 1 year deal with the Broncos.

[bigben07MVP]

4 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

JFC, you are free to go back and check my post history on my feelings regarding that signing. But the fact of the matter is that they signed someone they liked to start. They liked him so much they checked that box on day 1. 

Not having something work out isn't the same as having a bad plan. 

In the same way that having things work isn't the same as having a good plan. 

....which is where we are. 

Jfc? You are the one saying you feel like you’re taking crazy pills because we didn’t sign George Fant (31 years old and extremely mediocre) or La’el Collins (30 years old, coming off a torn ACL/MCL, and hasn’t been good since his Dallas days).