QB Situation

[Ward4HOF]

1 hour ago, skywlker32 said:

My fear with this is the Steelers get caught in the "we can fix him" mentality and we are stuck in one of the worst case scenarios to me: mediocre QB play or lower for extended time (ok maybe not the worst, but not many teams are pulling a Browns and guaranteeing the worst QB in the league a boat load of money).

...and my fear is that we sink at least $140M+ over 3 years, for Wilson's Age 36-38 season, and he regresses even worse than Ben did, in his last 2 seasons.

So, what that probably means is that we should not entertain either, haha.

Let's just start Kyle Allen, and tank, and draft a QB in the top 10! (kidding, of course...)

Edited Wednesday at 04:32 PM by Ward4HOF

[warfelg]

TBH I think that it would be more likely that Fields would get that contract than Wilson based on all potential. And sinking that into the QB position based on potential is an easy way to put yourself into trouble IMO because if he doesn't do that, not only do you need to manipulated things to work better cap wise, but now you need to manipulate the draft to get into position to be drafting one and there's a chance you just wouldn't be able to pounce to put pieces in place.

[skywlker32]

1 hour ago, MOSteelers56 said:

Any draftniks know which of the draftable QBs are a good fit in Smith's system? I don't think Russ or Fields are great for what he wants. 

IMO, you don't draft a QB to fit a system. QB is the one position that you take the guy and build whatever you need to around them regardless of fit within the current system. I'd rather replace OC than pass on who you think is the better QB.

14 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

...and my fear is that we sink at least $140M+ over 3 years, for Wilson's Age 36-38 season, and he regresses even worse than Ben did, in his last 2 seasons.

So, what that probably means is that we should not entertain either, haha.

Let's just start Kyle Allen, and tank, and draft a QB in the top 10! (kidding, of course...)

Yea, I think the scenarios are ultimately not much different than the beginning of the year if Russ gets the start:

• Russ balls out the rest of the year
  • Russ likely gets a big contract (hopefully either short term or with another team)
  • Fields is gone or signed as backup. Essentially the success of Russ proves a lacking in Fields
• Russ gives us a similar or worse few games compared to what we have seen from Fields
  • Russ is gone or a backup here/elsewhere
  • I think you would retain Fields and bring in competition at QB

[Ward4HOF]

10 minutes ago, warfelg said:

TBH I think that it would be more likely that Fields would get that contract than Wilson based on all potential.

Well...2 things to that...

1. - If your Fields, and you were just benched after going 4-2, with 10 TDs to just 1 Int, and then Wilson starts the rest of the season, why on Earth would you even consider signing with that team?  Wilson would then, have to be benched, in favor of Fields, for at least the last 6-7 games, to even think about it, but many still wouldn't, because he'll get at least the same offer somewhere, and not have to worry if I'm going to be benched next season, for only having a couple of mediocre games.

and 2. - Not sure why you'd think that, after signing Ben when he was 37 YO, to a 2-year $68M contract (essentially, $34M per), that surely, in today's money, is easily close to $45M per season, so why wouldn't they pay Wilson at least that, because he's already stated he wants, and thinks he can start for 4-5 more seasons, and if you think he'll take less than at least $45M per, like Cousins just signed for 4 years...

No.  If Wilson starts in favor of Fields this week, all those worried about signing Fields can breathe a sigh of relief, because he was just told that a 4-2 record, with just 1 INT in 6 games, wasn't good enough.  There is no sugar coating that, unless, Wilson is benched in favor of Fields after no more than 5 games, but even then, I'd still be pretty peeved if I was Fields, and I'd think long and hard about re-signing with a team that benched me for going 4-2 with only 2-3 of 5 OL starters starting, and not one decent #2 WR.  This offense should have been tweaked to make Muth and Darnell the #2 and #3 reads in the majority of the plays called--that's on Arthur Smith.

Seriously, would any one of us be thinking differently, if they were 25YO, and just a few seasons out from being drafted #11 overall??  Not as fans, and what we think is reasonable, or the right call, etc.  If your Fields, would you want to re-sign here, if he gets benched in favor of Wilson??  Other teams will come a callin', and with a decent contract, to boot.  I can think of at least 4 teams that would take him right now--Raiders, Panthers, Giants, Titans, and Browns, and possibly, one of Jax/Miami (Tua depending)

[warfelg]

15 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

IMO, you don't draft a QB to fit a system. QB is the one position that you take the guy and build whatever you need to around them regardless of fit within the current system. I'd rather replace OC than pass on who you think is the better QB.

IMO you need a marriage of both. You need a OC who is flexible enough to make something work with the QB you have, but you also need a QB who can learn a system. Like you look at Indy and Cleveland and both teams have had situations where the backup has come in and looked better even with the offense being more tailored to each QB.

[skywlker32]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

IMO you need a marriage of both. You need a OC who is flexible enough to make something work with the QB you have, but you also need a QB who can learn a system. Like you look at Indy and Cleveland and both teams have had situations where the backup has come in and looked better even with the offense being more tailored to each QB.

To your point then, if the OC can't adjust to the QB, is he worth being your OC? I wouldn't want to be the team taking Josh Rosen or Sam Darnold over Lamar Jackson due to scheme fit if you thought Jackson would be the better QB. Also, a top QB is more likely to be around longer than a top OC.

[warfelg]

5 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

Well...2 things to that...

1. - If your Fields, and you were just benched after going 4-2, with 10 TDs to just 1 Int, and then Wilson starts the rest of the season, why on Earth would you even consider signing with that team?  Wilson would then, have to be benched, in favor of Fields, for at least the last 6-7 games, to even think about it, but many still wouldn't, because he'll get at least the same offer somewhere, and not have to worry if I'm going to be benched next season, for only having a couple of mediocre games.

Well that's separate from what I'm saying. But I think dumbing down the discussion to record (team stat) and TD/INT (ignoring the actual play) really shows why we shouldn't hitch our wagon to him TBH.

6 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

and 2. - Not sure why you'd think that, after signing Ben when he was 37 YO, to a 2-year $68M contract (essentially, $34M per), that surely, in today's money, is easily close to $45M per season, so why wouldn't they pay Wilson at least that, because he's already stated he wants, and thinks he can start for 4-5 more seasons, and if you think he'll take less than at least $45M per, like Cousins just signed for 4 years...

Again, my argument isn't that they wouldn't do that with Wilson, rather unless Wilson came in and was MVP level good it would be more likely they lean to Fields playing the rest of the season ok to earn that.

 

7 minutes ago, Ward4HOF said:

No.  If Wilson starts in favor of Fields this week, all those worried about signing Fields can breathe a sigh of relief, because he was just told that a 4-2 record, with just 1 INT in 6 games, wasn't good enough.  There is no sugar coating that, unless, Wilson is benched in favor of Fields after no more than 5 games, but even then, I'd still be pretty peeved if I was Fields, and I'd think long and hard about re-signing with a team that benched me for going 4-2 with only 2-3 of 5 OL starters starting, and not one decent #2 WR.  This offense should have been tweaked to make Muth and Darnell the #2 and #3 reads in the majority of the plays called--that's on Arthur Smith.

First, we're not in building or in huddle so saying those guys aren't the 2/3 reads is a little bit of guess work there.

But there's also no sugar coating that Fields has left a lot of plays on the field. The same type of plays that fans were roasting Pickett on last year. As a collective fanbase it's kinda BS that we continually put things on coaches, and rely on the players. Like is it on Arthur Smith that Fields felt throwing the ball to a blanketed Pickens over a wide open CAIII and Muth was the play? Heck no! That's on Fields. These last two games had plenty of guys open if you go back and rewatch. In fact, I feel like @jebrick said it perfectly in the GDT that the offense success is kinda not sustainable (not his exact words) because they've yet to put together a long sustained scoring drive. And you can say too that Fields legs have been a weapon in the RZ to score, but go back and look at some of those plays and they could easily be passing TD's. Add in all those missed open guys and the number of times that's resulted in punt, or next play was a fumble that created a super long situation, and you think - hmm a drive that stalled that could have been there.

If Fields thinks his play has been good enough to be unquestioned starter, then maybe he should walk.

 

(additionally what's funny to me about all of this, Russell wasn't even fully named the starter, just that they were looking at the possibility. Same thing was said with Pickett before starting multiple times).

[warfelg]

1 minute ago, skywlker32 said:

To your point then, if the OC can't adjust to the QB, is he worth being your OC? I wouldn't want to be the team taking Josh Rosen or Sam Darnold over Lamar Jackson due to scheme fit if you thought Jackson would be the better QB. Also, a top QB is more likely to be around longer than a top OC.

This is the one side or the other argument though. Like I said you need both to be together. Otherwise you aren't challenging your QB to grow and get better. And I'm not talking as bas as that (FWIW Jackson was not a scheme fir for BMore when drafted) example, but more like the rumor Brady put out there of Watson running the Clemson offense his entire NFL career before the Browns. Because you didn't get a QB that could somewhat learn a system and you tailored everything to him he never was challenged to grow.

[skywlker32]

10 minutes ago, warfelg said:

This is the one side or the other argument though. Like I said you need both to be together. Otherwise you aren't challenging your QB to grow and get better. And I'm not talking as bas as that (FWIW Jackson was not a scheme fir for BMore when drafted) example, but more like the rumor Brady put out there of Watson running the Clemson offense his entire NFL career before the Browns. Because you didn't get a QB that could somewhat learn a system and you tailored everything to him he never was challenged to grow.

Right, you do need both, but IMO you get a different OC if he doesn't mesh with your potential star QB. In the Browns case, if you have an OC that can't make Watson work, why have him there at all. It seems to me the Browns have a bit of both not the QB and not the OC. Again, a star QB could be there for 15-20 years, but coordinator turnover is much higher. If you find your QB, you're likely going to be switching OC twice I would guess based on how long OCs stay with teams.

[August4th]

2 hours ago, warfelg said:

So the 80's and 90's.

Yeah. we've pretty much been a slightly better version of 80s steelers this decade lol

[warfelg]

4 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

Right, you do need both, but IMO you get a different OC if he doesn't mesh with your potential star QB. In the Browns case, if you have an OC that can't make Watson work, why have him there at all. It seems to me the Browns have a bit of both not the QB and not the OC. Again, a star QB could be there for 15-20 years, but coordinator turnover is much higher. If you find your QB, you're likely going to be switching OC twice I would guess based on how long OCs stay with teams.

I guess more my thoughts is, if you are the Browns/Colts are you firing your HC and starting over with a whole new staff? Especially in the Colts case Steichen was in on the whole process meaning he was part of picking and willing to work with AR, but it's still a clunky fit (and Shane also worked well with a similar QB in Hurts and was successful).

Like, I think of Carolina. You had the coach and took the QB that fit his system, so you took fit with OC over actual skill which said Stroud (and the only argument against Stroud was Fields lack of success). But then you fired that HC/OC because Young wasn't good and brought in a new HC who would potentially have a system offensively that fits the QB, and it still didn't work. Are you going to really go through another HC/OC change to make it work for young, or at that point just say, lets cut our losses and move on.

Now in Fields case can you say the number of OC's he's had with Lazor, Getsy, now Smith hurts him because of the lack of a voice and coaching? Ok I can kind of get that. But at the same time he's been through 3 offensive systems, 2 that are trying to work to his strengths, and still the same struggles in his game exist even though certain parts (turnovers) look better. So do you really want to throw yet another coordinator at him, another voice, another language, another whole system? I dunno. 

Basically, my end thought is this: I don't feel like Fields is the guy worth getting rid of ASmith over.

[3rivers]

16 minutes ago, August4th said:

Yeah. we've pretty much been a slightly better version of 80s steelers this decade lol

hard to believe

that our offence now (Bos) is better than it was back then (Anderson)

defence and FG's won't win vs the better teams today. Even a 12-5 record -  will mean nothing vs the better teams if TD's aren't had. 8 other teams have less TD's than us, so at least we aren't in the bottom quarter .  On the bright side, it can only get better , I would think.  Then consider the schedule that is in the last half, maybe it doesn't get better?

[skywlker32]

11 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I guess more my thoughts is, if you are the Browns/Colts are you firing your HC and starting over with a whole new staff? Especially in the Colts case Steichen was in on the whole process meaning he was part of picking and willing to work with AR, but it's still a clunky fit (and Shane also worked well with a similar QB in Hurts and was successful).

Like, I think of Carolina. You had the coach and took the QB that fit his system, so you took fit with OC over actual skill which said Stroud (and the only argument against Stroud was Fields lack of success). But then you fired that HC/OC because Young wasn't good and brought in a new HC who would potentially have a system offensively that fits the QB, and it still didn't work. Are you going to really go through another HC/OC change to make it work for young, or at that point just say, lets cut our losses and move on.

Now in Fields case can you say the number of OC's he's had with Lazor, Getsy, now Smith hurts him because of the lack of a voice and coaching? Ok I can kind of get that. But at the same time he's been through 3 offensive systems, 2 that are trying to work to his strengths, and still the same struggles in his game exist even though certain parts (turnovers) look better. So do you really want to throw yet another coordinator at him, another voice, another language, another whole system? I dunno. 

Basically, my end thought is this: I don't feel like Fields is the guy worth getting rid of ASmith over.

My stance was never that Fields is that guy you build around. My initial response was to a post asking about QBs in the upcoming draft that would fit Arthur Smith's offense. You just don't view it that way IMO.

You point to it a bit with Young. They selected Young at least partially because he fit the system at the time (mistake number 1) then they doubled down and brought in a new coach that fit what Young supposedly did well (mistake 2).

Regarding the Browns, I think they have an issue at coaching and at QB. I don't know that I buy Watson's issue being just on the offense being run, but I also wouldn't stick with the current OC given their situation. Watson is making his money regardless, why not try to make it work in the best scenario possible. I also wouldn't be fully committing to him as your QB. I would 100% be bringing in competition. If he makes that money on the bench, so be it.

[Ward4HOF]

1 hour ago, warfelg said:

Well that's separate from what I'm saying. But I think dumbing down the discussion to record (team stat) and TD/INT (ignoring the actual play) really shows why we shouldn't hitch our wagon to him TBH.

Again, my argument isn't that they wouldn't do that with Wilson, rather unless Wilson came in and was MVP level good it would be more likely they lean to Fields playing the rest of the season ok to earn that.

 

First, we're not in building or in huddle so saying those guys aren't the 2/3 reads is a little bit of guess work there.

But there's also no sugar coating that Fields has left a lot of plays on the field. The same type of plays that fans were roasting Pickett on last year. As a collective fanbase it's kinda BS that we continually put things on coaches, and rely on the players. Like is it on Arthur Smith that Fields felt throwing the ball to a blanketed Pickens over a wide open CAIII and Muth was the play? Heck no! That's on Fields. These last two games had plenty of guys open if you go back and rewatch. In fact, I feel like @jebrick said it perfectly in the GDT that the offense success is kinda not sustainable (not his exact words) because they've yet to put together a long sustained scoring drive. And you can say too that Fields legs have been a weapon in the RZ to score, but go back and look at some of those plays and they could easily be passing TD's. Add in all those missed open guys and the number of times that's resulted in punt, or next play was a fumble that created a super long situation, and you think - hmm a drive that stalled that could have been there.

If Fields thinks his play has been good enough to be unquestioned starter, then maybe he should walk.

 

(additionally what's funny to me about all of this, Russell wasn't even fully named the starter, just that they were looking at the possibility. Same thing was said with Pickett before starting multiple times).

What's NOT on Fields were the first two catchable passes of the 2nd drive, one of which was a perfectly timed throw, the Pickens dropped, and the TD pass he dropped, so the narrative I've seen (not by you), that he can't throw timed throws, and he has to wait until they are open, is BS.  The TD pass was right on his hands, and the other timing throw went through his hands, and just bounced off his facemask.  Pickens has 6 catches on 15 targets in October, and at least five of those 9 misses, were on GP, not on Fields. GP killed that 2nd drive, all by his onesie.

Sure, he's thrown some poor passes, but since he's our QB, we think he's worse than most other starting QBs.  The bottom line is, that prior to last week, he had a 68% Comp%, so complaining about that, is, well, worse than complaining about a coach who might not be calling the cleanest game.  Pickens makes those 3 catchable balls, and he's 17 of 24, with 2 passing TDs, and one Rushing, so, would the narrative be different then?  Also, how many have complained about how he lucked out of having an INT, on a roughing call, but if you think he's the first QB to throw errantly, with a pass rusher in his face, well...and while he may have had only a 75.9 Passer Rating, his QBR was 74.9, the highest he's had all season, so how bad of a game did he really have?

Also, I wasn't saying that I know what reads are what, and it's possible that Smith does have the TEs a higher priority, and maybe Fields did miss some open guys, but not having reliable WRs has really hurt him, and GP is one of the biggest culprits, and he's the supposed #1?  So why are 'we' beating up on Fields, when it's clear that GP's play has regressed, even worse than Fields, the last two games.  The QB can't force the WR to catch catchable passes.

No one is saying Fields is faultless, or that he's a better passer than Russ Wilson, but he is younger, more mobile, and a lot taller, so he has his advantages, as well.  And all that I am arguing, is of course, based upon Wilson starting in week 7; if he doesn't, then great, but most believe that Tomlin is leaning toward Wilson.  I personally, think it's a bad idea, for more than just the one game.  I think it's bad for the season, and after the season as well.  If you don't think Fields has done enough to be, at least, an average starting QB in this league, than there are at least 14 other QBs in the same boat as Fields, because he certainly is not worse than more than half the starting QBs in the NFL, and yes, we can win with Fields--he's proved it, so why is Tomlin considering a change?  Maybe he feels as you do, and thinks that he's essentially 'lucked' into the wins, so far, and Wilson provides us a better chance to win, but IMO, not this week, and maybe not, at all.  Just because he's a more accurate passer, doesn't mean he'll put up better results for the offense for this game, this season, or next.

It's clear you don't feel Fields is worthy of being our starting QB, and I'm not going to change your mind, but I'm also not saying that Wilson isn't capable of being successful at being our starting QB, because he is.  I'm just questioning the decision to change a QB who's won 4 games, and almost 5, and outside of a few errant throws, has looked every bit the capable NFL starter in this league, and I'd argue, more than any QB we've started over the past 3 seasons.

Sure, Wilson is better in some aspects, but Fields' game also presents advantages over Wilson.  It'll be interesting to see what the final decision is, but if it is Wilson, and he doesn't get injured, and remains the starter, Fields is done in Pittsburgh, moving forward.  I just hope we don't throw a ton of money at Wilson this off-season, to be our starting QB.

 

The 

[warfelg]

5 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

My stance was never that Fields is that guy you build around. My initial response was to a post asking about QBs in the upcoming draft that would fit Arthur Smith's offense. You just don't view it that way IMO.

I guess I would say I'm at 75% agree though. Like if you had Player A and Player B graded the same, yet their fit with the OC matters. If you have A graded far higher than B, and you take B because of fit, then it's a mistake. So that's why I wouldn't just ditch the OC right away to take one that fits. (I'm also in favor of always giving the OC a shot to adapt). This was my argument at a different position a few years ago where I preferred Williams/Etienne to Harris, where I had them all similarly graded but Williams/Etienne fit the offense better.

 

1 hour ago, skywlker32 said:

You point to it a bit with Young. They selected Young at least partially because he fit the system at the time (mistake number 1) then they doubled down and brought in a new coach that fit what Young supposedly did well (mistake 2).

I mean, I think they made the mistake on 1, but 2 is what happens when you start chasing that. But like the Niners and Trey Lance are a good example of the opposite. You took a guy, attempted to make the offense fit him but still went with what you know is good, he failed, then instead of changing offense to make Lance work, they moved on (granted I know injury helped that along). Anyways my long story short is there's a balance because you can't at some point you do need to say "hey it's just the player" and that line is different for everyone.

1 hour ago, skywlker32 said:

Regarding the Browns, I think they have an issue at coaching and at QB. I don't know that I buy Watson's issue being just on the offense being run, but I also wouldn't stick with the current OC given their situation. Watson is making his money regardless, why not try to make it work in the best scenario possible. I also wouldn't be fully committing to him as your QB. I would 100% be bringing in competition. If he makes that money on the bench, so be it.

Browns issue, and this goes to most teams that have play calling HC's, is that if it is more the player, and you got this situation of fit vs bpa, are you really going to fire the entire coaching staff? I feel like the only time where you can really, truly set that is when you have the #1 overall pick. Even then you are likely hiring a coach before you go through the entire process of knowing who to coach. So it comes back to unless you are picking a massively lower graded player just for fit, saying you are going to bring in a different OC during the draft process just to fit a certain guy just isn't happening.

Anyways, just to sum up my thought here - Yes, you want your OC to adapt to the players you pick, but fit is also a tiebreaker and if you are blindly just picking players you know don't fit and the OC won't be able to adjust the offense to fit, you are doing your team a disservice. Especially at QB with a high pick. You need both sides to be able to have a QB that fits with what you do and a OC who can highlight those strengths.