kurgan's mock 3.0--St. Paddy's Hangover

[Dcash4]

13 minutes ago, MOSteelers56 said:

I was mistaken. 

If you like, we can just ignore that and go to my next rebuttal that a one game sample size of success isn't enough to prove to me that it's the offense alone that are creating the success regardless of running back talent.  

[43M]

2 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

Can we take a step back and remember that DeAngelo was also a really, really talented running back whos career was completely changed due to injuries?

Its not like we just found a nobody off a scrap pile and that he was only successful because he was on this team. DeAngelo was really good on this team because he was really good.

Everyone thought DWill was washed up when we signed him. 

I still have yet to hear a logical explanation of why it would be a good idea to basically let Bell know we have no intention of resigning him going into the season. 

And two more things...

1) we drafted Connor in the third round last year. Why aren't we giving him the chance to prove himself capable of possibly taking over for Bell next year?

2) no one is suggesting replacing Bell with a scrub. But unless we are planning on trading Bell, we don't need to drive his replacement this year. It does more harm than good. It lets Bell know we are done with him, and costs us a player at a bigger position of need.

[43M]

6 hours ago, kurgan said:

AAAAnd, EVEN if Bell signs the tag, doesn't retire, whatever... what if he can't make it through the season like two years ago.  We are back to Connor and Ridley.  Now, I like Connor, but can you see him starting in a Super Bowl??  If we are truly looking at BPA, Chubb is that guy at this spot.  Even for this year.

Yeah, I absolutely could see Connor starting in a Super Bowl. Not because he is anything special, but because you don't need a special running back to win a Superbowl. Plenty of teams have won with average at best running games, including us. There are a lot more examples of teams winning with mediocre running games and winning with mediocre defenses.

As for your other point, you can make that argument about any position. Yes Bell might get hurt, but so could Ben, and Antonio, and any of our o lineman, and Heyward, and Shazier... oh wait...

Not trying to be a smart-***, just saying that argument could be applied to any player at any position, and running back is one of the easier positions to replace. Running back is harder to replace when you don't have a franchise quarterback or weapons on the outside. Not that losing Bell wouldn't hurt at all, but it wouldn't bury us as some think it will. Not even close actually.

In my opinion, the only two logical options are to either keep Le'Veon and continue trying to re sign him long-term or trade him and draft his replacement this year. I'd rather draft a wide receiver or tight end in the second round then a running back, pending we keep Le'Veon this year of course, and I don't want those positions either. I'd rather piss off a guy like Martavis Bryant than Le'Veon.

[Magnus-Viktor]

First and last do it for me.  I'll take anything where we get Hubbard.  

[Chieferific]

6 hours ago, MOSteelers56 said:

I'd counter that by saying, Fitzgerald Toussaint ran for 125+ in the one game he started behind our line. That was also an offense that was missing Bryant and AB.

::EDIT:: He did not. I was mistaken. I'll leave this here to show my shame. For shame, MOSteelers56. For shame!

You might be thinking of the Cinci Playoff game where he had over 100yds combined. He looked very explosive running and catching. Of course all of that was tarnished by the fumble the following week. 

[warfelg]

5 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

I still have yet to hear a logical explanation of why it would be a good idea to basically let Bell know we have no intention of resigning him going into the season. 

On the flip....what would it be a good idea to make him think that by not taking someone we'll have to give into what he wants?

Quote

1) we drafted Connor in the third round last year. Why aren't we giving him the chance to prove himself capable of possibly taking over for Bell next year?

Who said we aren't giving him a change?  Just because you draft a RB this year doesn't mean Connor wouldn't get a chance.  Maybe you end up drafting more of a speed scat back to complement Connors power back ways.  But having both with pass catching abilities doesn't hurt.

Quote

2) no one is suggesting replacing Bell with a scrub. But unless we are planning on trading Bell, we don't need to drive his replacement this year. It does more harm than good. It lets Bell know we are done with him, and costs us a player at a bigger position of need.

How would having a guy in house to contribute in case of injuries, suspensions, or in general do more harm than good?  Let's say we get to the late second and you had a high second grade on Michel, you could just take him and hold true to your board.  WR wasn't that huge a need last year and we did the same with JuJu.

[Chieferific]

1 hour ago, warfelg said:

On the flip....what would it be a good idea to make him think that by not taking someone we'll have to give into what he wants?

Who said we aren't giving him a change?  Just because you draft a RB this year doesn't mean Connor wouldn't get a chance.  Maybe you end up drafting more of a speed scat back to complement Connors power back ways.  But having both with pass catching abilities doesn't hurt.

How would having a guy in house to contribute in case of injuries, suspensions, or in general do more harm than good?  Let's say we get to the late second and you had a high second grade on Michel, you could just take him and hold true to your board.  WR wasn't that huge a need last year and we did the same with JuJu.

A Backfield of Michel and Conner would be nice. Having Bell would be better but that's a pretty good alternative. 

[43M]

3 hours ago, warfelg said:

On the flip....what would it be a good idea to make him think that by not taking someone we'll have to give into what he wants?

Why would he think that?

RB is one of the easier positions to replace.

Id rather him believe he has leverage than let him know BEFORE THE SEASON that we have no intention of resign him.

Quote

Who said we aren't giving him a change?  Just because you draft a RB this year doesn't mean Connor wouldn't get a chance.  Maybe you end up drafting more of a speed scat back to complement Connors power back ways.  But having both with pass catching abilities doesn't hurt.

I have no problem with a committee running game with Conner and another back, but why cant we do that next year?   Why do we need to draft a RB early THIS  year to replace a RB NEXT year?    

Again, we are in win now mode.

You seem like you are focused on the future, which is fine....but I completely disagree with your approach.

Quote

How would having a guy in house to contribute in case of injuries, suspensions, or in general do more harm than good? 

You are misunderstanding my stance.

I never once said thats a bad thing.   Obviously thats not a bad thing.

HOWEVER....if you are drafting a RB EARLY....the writing is obviously on the wall for Bell.    What is his motivation to go all out for us if he knows we are done with him?     Despite what some might claim, he doesnt need to have a huge year to get the contract he wants.      Im not saying he will quit on us, but all he needs is a few nice games.    He has no motivation to leave it all out on the field when he knows we are just going to dump him after the season.

We drafted a 3rd round RB last year.   There is some good depth at RB in the draft.    Why  not draft a RB in the 5th or 6th round this year, and continue to try to resign Bell, and if it doesnt happen, draft a RB early NEXT year?   IMO, thats the best course of action....but thats me.

Quote

Let's say we get to the late second and you had a high second grade on Michel, you could just take him and hold true to your board.  WR wasn't that huge a need last year and we did the same with JuJu.

Okay...draft Michel.....then trade Bell for a 2019 first.     I can get behind that.

Beyond that, agree to disagree.

I guess I just dont value RB as much as you and others on here.

I have a different view of how a team should be built.    Doesnt mean Im right,  but its how I feel.

Oh....and that Juju/WR thing isnt remotely comparable to this situation.   

We werent even sure what was going on with Bryant, and we also didnt know that they were pretty much giving up on Sammie Coates.    Beyond that, we didnt have a solidified number 2 next to Brown going into the season, and the biggest thing.....drafting him wasnt going to make...say....Antonio Brown unhappy.

IN THIS SITUATION, we are drafting a RB to replace a guy currently playing under the franchise tag.     The guy we draft is either going to be the 3rd string back and hardly see many touches, or, he will get more touches but that means James Conner doesnt get as many....in which case you ask, why did we even draft him in the 3rd round last year?

Again.....just seems like you value RB much more than I do....and thats fine.   

 

[Dcash4]

19 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Everyone thought DWill was washed up when we signed him.

Define washed up for me, because this is not at all how I remember his reception to this team. Even went back and checked out any articles I could surrounding his signing as well as dug through the archive of this forum for the fan reception. Sure, there were people against it but the majority (including yourself) saw it as a good signing. The articles continually talked about how this was a "good" signing and could end up being a "steal" if he remained healthy. 

He was an over 30, often injured RB who was coming here to be the backup and start the first 2 games of the year. What were the expectations? Are you trying to say that he was void of all talent here and back up the idea that anyone can be successful in this offense?

[warfelg]

@FourThreeMafia

im not huge on early RB unless it’s a great value. I was just playing some devils advocat. 

But the idea that you have to trade Bell if you draft a RB is wrong. 1) Fitz Trus isn’t stopping me from improving. 2) Connor is coming off a knee injury. No guarantee he’s not on PUP or able to play at all. 3) No guarantee the pick isn’t a bust. And lastly 4) I want other backs to rotate in, and I want better quality when we do that. 

[43M]

3 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

Define washed up for me, because this is not at all how I remember his reception to this team. Even went back and checked out any articles I could surrounding his signing as well as dug through the archive of this forum for the fan reception. Sure, there were people against it but the majority (including yourself) saw it as a good signing. The articles continually talked about how this was a "good" signing and could end up being a "steal" if he remained healthy. 

He was an over 30, often injured RB who was coming here to be the backup and start the first 2 games of the year. What were the expectations? Are you trying to say that he was void of all talent here and back up the idea that anyone can be successful in this offense?

 he was a quality signing as a backup. He exceeded expectations though and was able to fill in admirably as a starter. So when I say washed up, I don't mean he didn't have anything left in general, just that most people didn't think he had the ability to be an adequate starter anymore.

And I'm not saying anyone can be successful in this offense, but with our o-line and weapons on the outside, I think Connor paired with another decent back can get the job done fine.

[43M]

3 hours ago, warfelg said:

@FourThreeMafia

im not huge on early RB unless it’s a great value. I was just playing some devils advocat. 

But the idea that you have to trade Bell if you draft a RB is wrong. 1) Fitz Trus isn’t stopping me from improving. 2) Connor is coming off a knee injury. No guarantee he’s not on PUP or able to play at all. 3) No guarantee the pick isn’t a bust. And lastly 4) I want other backs to rotate in, and I want better quality when we do that. 

Never said you HAD to trade Bell if you draft a running back. I said I believe it's a very bad idea to draft a running back early and let Bell know you have no intention of keeping him long term.

Again, it's clear you value the running back position much higher than I do. Not that I don't value it, but I'm not in favor of expending major resources for depth at the position when we don't even have adequate starters at certain positions on defense... And that's not even mentioning the lack of depth at those positions, which is just as important as depth at running back, if not more so.

I'm done debating this though. I've already given my thoughts on the matter and in this case, they aren't going to change.

[warfelg]

You’ve said twice I value RB higher that you....I don’t. I even said that. What I said is if RB left is by far and away BPA I take him. Huge difference. 

 

For example if Ronald Jones is there with our second round pick, has a first round pick grade, do you then take a 3rd round grade LB just because? Now if it’s down to Penny and Bates I take Bates no question. 

[43M]

3 hours ago, warfelg said:

You’ve said twice I value RB higher that you....I don’t. I even said that. What I said is if RB left is by far and away BPA I take him. Huge difference. 

 

For example if Ronald Jones is there with our second round pick, has a first round pick grade, do you then take a 3rd round grade LB just because? Now if it’s down to Penny and Bates I take Bates no question. 

Okay fine, fair enough.

I'm all about value in the draft, but to a point. On top of that, this is chess not checkers. What I mean by that is you have to be strategic and consider all the consequences of your move. You draft a running back in the second round you're going to piss off Bell. 

So, again... if we draft a running back early on, I'll be pounding the table to trade Bell. Will it happen? Probably not, but I'm not in favor of putting that many resources into the running back position. There are quality free agents we can sign if need be, plus the draft is deep at running back. The only back I would personally take early is Barkley, and that's obviously not happening.

So, one last time... Either keep Bell and continue trying to sign him long-term and draft a running back late, or draft a running back early and ship Bell off. Those are the only two options I'm in favor of. If you are in favor of keeping Bell this year and drafting a running back early, so be it. I respect it, I just completely disagree with it.

 

 

[Alex]

Another way to look at this. We have tagged Le'Veon Bell; he hasn't signed the tag. 

We are buying more time for ourselves to look into options. This means looking at the running backs regardless.

If they truly feel like they can get somebody within a value, whether that's in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, the Steelers will have the next two options.

Trade away Le'Veon Bell or let him walk, albeit Josh Norman situation.

Trading away Bell for a pick may do us good in future, but not present. Letting Bell walk means; we now may have the luxury of absorbing a contract or sign somebody off the waiver wire. We got Joe Haden that way, I can imagine a team would let somebody really good walk too, this just also we have more time to add players than trading Bell away as far I'm concerned, may not happen until July. 

Again, Bell has to agree to sign the tag for the trade to happen, as far I'm concerned if he doesn't like where he's going he will hold out. 

I'd like to trade him to Buccaneers for their 2019 1st round. 

Realistically, we are more likely to let him walk than trading him.