PDA

View Full Version : Steelers take a look at WR Nance



SteelerNation1
09-04-2008, 11:06 PM
According steelers.scout.com. Interesting. This is Big BEn's #1 WR from Miami (OH). This can't be good news on the development of Sweed and Baker though.

SteelerOfDeVille
09-04-2008, 11:10 PM
According steelers.scout.com. Interesting. This is Big BEn's #1 WR from Miami (OH). This can't be good news on the development of Sweed and Baker though.
A smart team would put him on the PS and replace one of the other guys...

SteelerNation1
09-04-2008, 11:13 PM
According steelers.scout.com. Interesting. This is Big BEn's #1 WR from Miami (OH). This can't be good news on the development of Sweed and Baker though.
A smart team would put him on the PS and replace one of the other guys...
Put who on the PS? Nance? Is he even eligible?

Shawn
09-04-2008, 11:15 PM
This can't be to replace Baker.

fordfixer
09-04-2008, 11:18 PM
Where did he play last?

SteelerOfDeVille
09-04-2008, 11:19 PM
According steelers.scout.com. Interesting. This is Big BEn's #1 WR from Miami (OH). This can't be good news on the development of Sweed and Baker though.
A smart team would put him on the PS and replace one of the other guys...
Put who on the PS? Nance? Is he even eligible?
Same draft as Willie Reid... who is on the Eagles PS....

SteelerOfDeVille
09-04-2008, 11:22 PM
Where did he play last?
cut by the Vikes over the weekend....

I guess he'd replace Micah Rucker....

buckeyehoppy
09-04-2008, 11:26 PM
Yeah, probably so.

I am OK with Sweed, even though he hasn't come out with guns ablazin'. I think he will eventually get untracked, but his rookie year might turn out to be something similar to Timmons'. I have no worries about Sweed yet.

Baker is a 7th rounder. But he has also made the team. On one hand, it doesn't worry me that his development has been slower than expected. You don't necessarily expect great things from 7th rounders. But he beat out a guy who has been on the team for the last three years and now he has his chance.

If they are bringing in Nance, then I'm not really surprised. If he proves to be better than Baker, I wouldn't be shocked at all. If he proves to be stronger than Sweed, then that would get my attention.

But I wouldn't necessarily expect Nance to get by Sweed on the depth chart if he has bounced around the league as he has been looking to find playing time and a roster spot.

Maybe I'm not surprised if he gets by Baker. That would be a straight up trade in my book.

buckeyehoppy
09-04-2008, 11:31 PM
Yeah, probably so.

I am OK with Sweed, even though he hasn't come out with guns ablazin'. I think he will eventually get untracked, but his rookie year might turn out to be something similar to Timmons'. I have no worries about Sweed yet.

Baker is a 7th rounder. But he has also made the team. On one hand, it doesn't worry me that his development has been slower than expected. You don't necessarily expect great things from 7th rounders. But he beat out a guy who has been on the team for the last three years and now he has his chance.

If they are bringing in Nance, then I'm not really surprised. If he proves to be better than Baker, I wouldn't be shocked at all. If he proves to be stronger than Sweed, then that would get my attention.

But I wouldn't necessarily expect Nance to get by Sweed on the depth chart if he has bounced around the league as he has been looking to find playing time and a roster spot.

Maybe I'm not surprised if he gets by Baker. That would be a straight up trade in my book.

Shawn
09-04-2008, 11:35 PM
I would imagine Ben asked for the Steelers to give him a look.

Chadman
09-04-2008, 11:47 PM
Nate Washington is on a 1 year deal right?

Put Nance on PS...see if Washington continues to develop & is worthy of a contract extension...if not, let him go & move Nance up to the active roster next year.

Chadman doesn't think it will necessarily impact either Sweed or Baker.

kennyes
09-05-2008, 01:07 AM
Baker was bumped ahead of Sweed and is the #4 receiver currently.

frankthetank1
09-05-2008, 07:37 AM
Baker was bumped ahead of Sweed and is the #4 receiver currently.

when was this reported? i havent heard anything about it. im not really suprised though. i dont see why baker is ahead of sweed though. its not like baker has any expierence either

steelblood
09-05-2008, 07:38 AM
Nance has bounced around the league for a few years now and never found a home. I wouldn't get too excited. I would expect that if Sweed or Baker went to the IR, this may be the sort of guy they'd sign. They can't be too high on Rucker.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
09-05-2008, 08:28 AM
"Congratulations Ben, you are Pittsburgh's 100 million dollar man!", said Colbert. "Is there anything else I could do for you?"

"I would like a Big WR!", said Roethlisberger. "A big WR really works well with me. I had Nance in college and Plex when I first started here. A big WR could improve our passing game to the next level."

"I'll see what I can do.", said Colbert.

04/26/2008 "With the 53rd pick, the Pittsburgh Steelers select...Limas Sweed...WR...Texas."

08/30/2008 "OK...Ward, Holmes, Washington, & Sweed in! Who's the 5th? Enie...Meanie...Minie...Moe...Hit a receiver on a hook & go...When Ben hollers I'm his HO...Enie...Meanie...Minie...OK it's Baker! ", said Colbert.

09/04/2008
"Hey Ben, come on in!", said Colbert. "What could I do for you today?"

"I appreciate what you have done for me but I need a favor.", said Ben.

"What is it?", said Colbert.
"Martin Nance is a FA and I wondered if you could take a look at him. We played together in college and we had allot of success. He is also a big guy!", said Ben.

"Did he ever play for Detroit?", said Colbert.

"No, why?", said Ben.

"Umm...No reason!", said Colbert. "Sure we could take a look at him...What is his number?"

"Will there be anything else Ben?", said Colbert.

"Yeah...Where's your bathroom? I'm done playing puppet with you and I need to wash my hands!!!", said GM BEN!

AngryAsian
09-05-2008, 08:42 AM
Nate Washington is on a 1 year deal right?

Put Nance on PS...see if Washington continues to develop & is worthy of a contract extension...if not, let him go & move Nance up to the active roster next year.

Chadman doesn't think it will necessarily impact either Sweed or Baker.


This is the most plausible of the hypotheses brought forth.

Oviedo
09-05-2008, 08:58 AM
"Congratulations Ben, you are Pittsburgh's 100 million dollar man!", said Colbert. "Is there anything else I could do for you?"

"I would like a Big WR!", said Roethlisberger. "A big WR really works well with me. I had Nance in college and Plex when I first started here. A big WR could improve our passing game to the next level."

"I'll see what I can do.", said Colbert.

04/26/2008 "With the 53rd pick, the Pittsburgh Steelers select...Limas Sweed...WR...Texas."

08/30/2008 "OK...Ward, Holmes, Washington, & Sweed in! Who's the 5th? Enie...Meanie...Minie...Moe...Hit a receiver on a hook & go...When Ben hollers I'm his HO...Enie...Meanie...Minie...OK it's Baker! ", said Colbert.

09/04/2008
"Hey Ben, come on in!", said Colbert. "What could I do for you today?"

"I appreciate what you have done for me but I need a favor.", said Ben.

"What is it?", said Colbert.
"Martin Nance is a FA and I wondered if you could take a look at him. We played together in college and we had allot of success. He is also a big guy!", said Ben.

"Did he ever play for Detroit?", said Colbert.

"No, why?", said Ben.

"Umm...No reason!", said Colbert. "Sure we could take a look at him...What is his number?"

"Will there be anything else Ben?", said Colbert.

"Yeah...Where's your bathroom? I'm done playing puppet with you and I need to wash my hands!!!", said GM BEN!

Pretty funny, but probably close to accurate. One of the sources I read this morning said that Ben asked them to give Nance a look. Also mentioned the fact that Tomlin was familiar with him because he was going on the Viking's PS going against Tomlin's defense when he was the DC.

The one thing I loke about Tomlin is that he seems to always be evaluating and looking at options even when the season is starting. These no risk, potential benefit evaluations are just smart business.

papillon
09-05-2008, 09:02 AM
Is it just me or does it seem that the Steelers are just hoping that the offensive and defensiive lines will just get themselves worked out? It's like they just want to put their head in the sand and hope the D-line stays healthy and that the O-line gels.

I mean they keep tinkering with parts of the team, that, for the most part, look fine. Why waste time and energy on the practice squad players? If you have to use more than one of them as starter due to injuries you're screwed regardless.

Geesh...more head scratching if you ask me. :wft

Pappy

Slapstick
09-05-2008, 09:06 AM
Yeah! The Steelers should reaaly be beating the bushes and looking under rocks for linemen cut by every other team in order to possibly find players who probably aren't better than anyone we currently have on the roster and have no familiarity with the Steelers defense...

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:10 AM
Yeah! The Steelers should reaaly be beating the bushes and looking under rocks for linemen cut by every other team in order to possibly find players who probably aren't better than anyone we currently have on the roster and have no familiarity with the Steelers defense...

A player cut by another team NEVER finds a home with a new team and becomes dominant right?

Oh snap...Mike Vrabel anyone?

Slapstick
09-05-2008, 09:14 AM
A player cut by another team NEVER finds a home with a new team and becomes dominant right?

Oh snap...Mike Vrabel anyone?

That's like arguing that every undrafted free agent is like Willie Parker or James Harrison...

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:18 AM
A player cut by another team NEVER finds a home with a new team and becomes dominant right?

Oh snap...Mike Vrabel anyone?

That's like arguing that every undrafted free agent is like Willie Parker or James Harrison...

So picking up a WR that has no clue about our offense is better though?!

That doesnt make much sense.

papillon
09-05-2008, 09:18 AM
Yeah! The Steelers should reaaly be beating the bushes and looking under rocks for linemen cut by every other team in order to possibly find players who probably aren't better than anyone we currently have on the roster and have no familiarity with the Steelers defense...

Fine, then, what's the purpose for Nance? How much better can McHugh be than Sherrod or Vickers? He's also hurt right now.

As far as offensive linemen go, Anderson was out there and I would find it difficult to believe that he isn't better than our backups. He's probably better than colon as a tackle anyhow.

Doesn't make sense to me, lets see, Ward, Holmes, Washington, Baker (who beat out 3rd round draft choice), Sweed and, so, they go looking for WR talent? :wft

Not to mention Rucker on PS who coaches were praising at one point during training camp.


Pappy

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:21 AM
Yeah! The Steelers should reaaly be beating the bushes and looking under rocks for linemen cut by every other team in order to possibly find players who probably aren't better than anyone we currently have on the roster and have no familiarity with the Steelers defense...

Fine, then, what's the purpose for Nance? How much better can McHugh be than Sherrod or Vickers? He's also hurt right now.

As far as offensive linemen go, Anderson was out there and I would find it difficult to believe that he isn't better than our backups. He's probably better than colon as a tackle anyhow.

Doesn't make sense to me, lets see, Ward, Holmes, Washington, Baker (who beat out 3rd round draft choice), Sweed and, so, they go looking for WR talent? :wft

Not to mention Rucker on PS who coaches were praising at one point during training camp.


Pappy

He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

Slapstick
09-05-2008, 09:21 AM
So picking up a WR that has no clue about our offense is better though?!

That doesnt make much sense.

So they picked him up?

Slapstick
09-05-2008, 09:22 AM
Fine, then, what's the purpose for Nance? How much better can McHugh be than Sherrod or Vickers? He's also hurt right now.

As far as offensive linemen go, Anderson was out there and I would find it difficult to believe that he isn't better than our backups. He's probably better than colon as a tackle anyhow.

Doesn't make sense to me, lets see, Ward, Holmes, Washington, Baker (who beat out 3rd round draft choice), Sweed and, so, they go looking for WR talent? :wft

Not to mention Rucker on PS who coaches were praising at one point during training camp.


Pappy

Willie Anderson = washed up

Slapstick
09-05-2008, 09:24 AM
He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

So, we cut Nick Eason who doesn't produce to pick up Stanley McClover so he can come in and not produce?

That's logical!

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:25 AM
So picking up a WR that has no clue about our offense is better though?!

That doesnt make much sense.

So they picked him up?

So what's wrong at looking at OL/DL?

We have enough depth at WR and RB...at least thats the theory behind selecting a WR+RB with 3 out of the 5 picks out of the 1/2nd round the last 2 years. The others? 2 LBs.

If we can justify those picks then why do we need to look for more receivers after Rucker is being praised and Baker is kept around?

What is wrong with looking at OL/DL?!

I know what's wrong with it...the FO didn't do it and they are infallible correct?

frankthetank1
09-05-2008, 09:26 AM
He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

So, we cut Nick Eason who doesn't produce to pick up Stanley McClover so he can come in and not produce?

That's logical!

eason was cut? when did that happen?

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:27 AM
He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

So, we cut Nick Eason who doesn't produce to pick up Stanley McClover so he can come in and not produce?

That's logical!

He's 5 years younger and has shown more promise than Nick Eason ever has.

How is that illogical? Keeping the crap status quo without giving other guys a shot you'll never know what could have happened. We KNOW what we have with Eason, and he SUCKS...we dont know what we'd have with McClover or Moore or others...and they could come in and produce.

Its simply laziness.

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:27 AM
He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

So, we cut Nick Eason who doesn't produce to pick up Stanley McClover so he can come in and not produce?

That's logical!

Trai Essex=Never Was.

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:28 AM
He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

So, we cut Nick Eason who doesn't produce to pick up Stanley McClover so he can come in and not produce?

That's logical!

eason was cut? when did that happen?

We didnt....dont get your hopes up!

frankthetank1
09-05-2008, 09:31 AM
He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

So, we cut Nick Eason who doesn't produce to pick up Stanley McClover so he can come in and not produce?

That's logical!

eason was cut? when did that happen?

We didnt....dont get your hopes up!

haha ok i didnt remember reading it so i wasnt sure. you know i thought he looked much better in the preseason this year, but he was going against scrubs

papillon
09-05-2008, 09:35 AM
Fine, then, what's the purpose for Nance? How much better can McHugh be than Sherrod or Vickers? He's also hurt right now.

As far as offensive linemen go, Anderson was out there and I would find it difficult to believe that he isn't better than our backups. He's probably better than colon as a tackle anyhow.

Doesn't make sense to me, lets see, Ward, Holmes, Washington, Baker (who beat out 3rd round draft choice), Sweed and, so, they go looking for WR talent? :wft

Not to mention Rucker on PS who coaches were praising at one point during training camp.


Pappy

Willie Anderson = washed up

And still better than some of the Steeler linemen.

Nance and McHugh are never has been, at least, Anderson played for 11 or 12 years at a high level. He would have come cheaper than Starks and is probably better.

I realize the Starks argument is bad, since, we had him signed prior to Anderson being on the market. It's just my point that the FO just doesn't seem to think there is an issue with the offensive line. They were probably hoping that Anderson would make it past the first week and then try to sign him, but, the Ravens weren't waiting.


Pappy

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:35 AM
He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

So, we cut Nick Eason who doesn't produce to pick up Stanley McClover so he can come in and not produce?

That's logical!

eason was cut? when did that happen?

We didnt....dont get your hopes up!

haha ok i didnt remember reading it so i wasnt sure. you know i thought he looked much better in the preseason this year, but he was going against scrubs

He's also 28, never been grossly effective and like you said played against scrubs. But yeah he and his 4 tackles were better than what he's put up before.

I thought McBean was going to be the next great thing on our DL though?

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:36 AM
Fine, then, what's the purpose for Nance? How much better can McHugh be than Sherrod or Vickers? He's also hurt right now.

As far as offensive linemen go, Anderson was out there and I would find it difficult to believe that he isn't better than our backups. He's probably better than colon as a tackle anyhow.

Doesn't make sense to me, lets see, Ward, Holmes, Washington, Baker (who beat out 3rd round draft choice), Sweed and, so, they go looking for WR talent? :wft

Not to mention Rucker on PS who coaches were praising at one point during training camp.


Pappy

Willie Anderson = washed up

And still better than some of the Steeler linemen.

Nance and McHugh are never has been, at least, Anderson played for 11 or 12 years at a high level. He would have come cheaper than Starks and is probably better.

Pappy

What do you mean? Starks is going to start and be signed long-term.

Slapstick
09-05-2008, 09:37 AM
And still better than some of the Steeler linemen.

Nance and McHugh are never has been, at least, Anderson played for 11 or 12 years at a high level. He would have come cheaper than Starks and is probably better.

Pappy

We'll never know...

I doubt either will play very much this year...

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:41 AM
And still better than some of the Steeler linemen.

Nance and McHugh are never has been, at least, Anderson played for 11 or 12 years at a high level. He would have come cheaper than Starks and is probably better.

Pappy

We'll never know...

I doubt either will play very much this year...

Was Anderson washed up last year when he played better than Starks?

papillon
09-05-2008, 09:41 AM
Fine, then, what's the purpose for Nance? How much better can McHugh be than Sherrod or Vickers? He's also hurt right now.

As far as offensive linemen go, Anderson was out there and I would find it difficult to believe that he isn't better than our backups. He's probably better than colon as a tackle anyhow.

Doesn't make sense to me, lets see, Ward, Holmes, Washington, Baker (who beat out 3rd round draft choice), Sweed and, so, they go looking for WR talent? :wft

Not to mention Rucker on PS who coaches were praising at one point during training camp.


Pappy

Willie Anderson = washed up

And still better than some of the Steeler linemen.

Nance and McHugh are never has been, at least, Anderson played for 11 or 12 years at a high level. He would have come cheaper than Starks and is probably better.

Pappy

What do you mean? Starks is going to start and be signed long-term.

http://www.retro.com/employees/lee/Ani/SarcasmMeter2.gif

:P

Pappy

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:43 AM
Fine, then, what's the purpose for Nance? How much better can McHugh be than Sherrod or Vickers? He's also hurt right now.

As far as offensive linemen go, Anderson was out there and I would find it difficult to believe that he isn't better than our backups. He's probably better than colon as a tackle anyhow.

Doesn't make sense to me, lets see, Ward, Holmes, Washington, Baker (who beat out 3rd round draft choice), Sweed and, so, they go looking for WR talent? :wft

Not to mention Rucker on PS who coaches were praising at one point during training camp.


Pappy

Willie Anderson = washed up

And still better than some of the Steeler linemen.

Nance and McHugh are never has been, at least, Anderson played for 11 or 12 years at a high level. He would have come cheaper than Starks and is probably better.

Pappy

What do you mean? Starks is going to start and be signed long-term.

http://www.retro.com/employees/lee/Ani/SarcasmMeter2.gif

:P

Pappy

Im serious. Should I go back and find all those who guaranteed it?

That's the only way to justify what the FO did.

Slapstick
09-05-2008, 09:50 AM
Was Anderson washed up last year when he played better than Starks?

He did? Last year? Really?

I disagree...

At least Max was played in all 16 games last year...unlike Willie...maybe that's why he was cut and why the Steelers didn't pursue him...

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 09:57 AM
Was Anderson washed up last year when he played better than Starks?

He did? Last year? Really?

I disagree...

At least Max was played in all 16 games last year...unlike Willie...maybe that's why he was cut and why the Steelers didn't pursue him...

LOL. Starks played like SH*T last year...but you are right...he did play like sh*t in more games than Anderson did last year.

Willie Anderson STARTED every single game for 7 years straight. In 1999 he started 14 game out of the 14 he played in...PREVIOUS to that he had started every single game every year since he was drafted.

Max Starks? Gets paid 7 million, 2 times at much as Anderson, and has not produced in the slightest as much as Anderson has. That is FACT.

Max Starks could not even beat out Colon. If Anderson was cut earlier he would have been signed and probably started for another team right away.

Starks played in 16 games last year and started 4...Anderson only played in 7 and started 5.

During those games...Cincinnati produced better as an OL than the Steelers did.

Coincidence? I think not.

If Anderson is washed up and useless at 3.5 million dollars.....the Max Starks is grossly useless at 7 million.

Slapstick
09-05-2008, 10:00 AM
LOL. Starks played like SH*T last year...but you are right...he did play like sh*t in more games than Anderson did last year.

Willie Anderson STARTED every single game for 7 years straight. In 1999 he started 14 game out of the 14 he played in...PREVIOUS to that he had started every single game every year since he was drafted.

Max Starks? Gets paid 7 million, 2 times at much as Anderson, and has not produced in the slightest as much as Anderson has. That is FACT.

Max Starks could not even beat out Colon. If Anderson was cut earlier he would have been signed and probably started for another team right away.

Starks played in 16 games last year and started 4...Anderson only played in 7 and started 5.

During those games...Cincinnati produced better as an OL than the Steelers did.

Coincidence? I think not.

If Anderson is washed up and useless at 3.5 million dollars.....the Max Starks is grossly useless at 7 million.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it...

I don't know what your definition of producing as an offensive line includes, but, again, I disagree...

Is Starks overpaid? Yes.

Did I hope that Starks would come out and play better this camp? Yes...

Is Willie Anderson the answer? Is he even an upgrade at this point? My opinion is no.

RuthlessBurgher
09-05-2008, 10:06 AM
He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

So, we cut Nick Eason who doesn't produce to pick up Stanley McClover so he can come in and not produce?

That's logical!

He's 5 years younger and has shown more promise than Nick Eason ever has.

How is that illogical? Keeping the crap status quo without giving other guys a shot you'll never know what could have happened. We KNOW what we have with Eason, and he SUCKS...we dont know what we'd have with McClover or Moore or others...and they could come in and produce.

Its simply laziness.

I agree that we should be looking for young developmental prospects on the d-line, but don't give McClover as an example. He's strictly a 4-3 DE, way too small for a 3-4 DE. He's listed at 6'2" 263 lbs. For comparison's sake, our starting OLB LaMarr Woodley is listed at 6'2" 265 lbs. By the way, we will see McClover at Heinz Field this weekend. He is currently on the Texans' roster.

fordfixer
09-05-2008, 10:20 AM
With the Steelers paying Max 7 mill to ride the pine who else is there that we can get and still stay under salary cap? We can't get rid of Max ( they tried) so we're stuck with him. And if we cut him we are still stuck with his cap #. :?:

papillon
09-05-2008, 10:21 AM
Im serious. Should I go back and find all those who guaranteed it?
That's the only way to justify what the FO did.


I think we're on the same side of this debate....

You asked me "What do you mean?"...maybe, I should explain.

I mean that Nance and McHugh have never done anythign significant in the NFL, hence the "never has been" comment; so, I can't see any reason to pursue these two players for any reason. Anderson, on the other hand, has performed in the NFL and could possibly make the offensive line better, but, certinaly would add decent depth.

And, I would rather have Anderson than Starks right now, particularly at the cost for Max. I can't remember whether I was for or against the tag on Starks, but, there is a good chance that I was willing to wait and see how it would all play out.

It played out poorly and the Steelers had many opportunities to pull the tag on Starks, particularly when other teams weren't beating down the door with offers to Max. They had to know that once he signed the tender they were on the hook for the 6.9 million. They made a mistake and it was an expensive one.

Pappy

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 10:22 AM
He's simply making an EXCUSE instead of actually making a logical argument.

What do I mean?

Its an excuse for why we keep the same players who dont produce/progress on the PS and why we sign some of our own players to inexcusable contracts instead of spending the money on new FA.

Why do we do the above?

Well they know the system so that instantly makes them better.

Yeah because Nick Eason is better than a guy like Stanley McClover simply b/c he knows the defense, even though he cant produce at all in that system.

Thats logical!

So, we cut Nick Eason who doesn't produce to pick up Stanley McClover so he can come in and not produce?

That's logical!

He's 5 years younger and has shown more promise than Nick Eason ever has.

How is that illogical? Keeping the crap status quo without giving other guys a shot you'll never know what could have happened. We KNOW what we have with Eason, and he SUCKS...we dont know what we'd have with McClover or Moore or others...and they could come in and produce.

Its simply laziness.

I agree that we should be looking for young developmental prospects on the d-line, but don't give McClover as an example. He's strictly a 4-3 DE, way too small for a 3-4 DE. He's listed at 6'2" 263 lbs. For comparison's sake, our starting OLB LaMarr Woodley is listed at 6'2" 265 lbs. By the way, we will see McClover at Heinz Field this weekend. He is currently on the Texans' roster.

Yeah. I was just using him as a comparison.

There are other examples and my point is still valid...we stated we wanted to get younger and better on the lines...and got older. That is impressive.

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 10:23 AM
Im serious. Should I go back and find all those who guaranteed it?
That's the only way to justify what the FO did.


I think we're on the same side of this debate....

You asked me "What do you mean?"...maybe, I should explain.

I mean that Nance and McHugh have never done anythign significant in the NFL, hence the "never has been" comment; so, I can't see any reason to pursue these two players for any reason. Anderson, on the other hand, has performed in the NFL and could possibly make the offensive line better, but, certinaly would add decent depth.

And, I would rather have Anderson than Starks right now, particularly at the cost for Max. I can't remember whether I was for or against the tag on Starks, but, there is a good chance that I was willing to wait and see how it would all play out.

It played out poorly and the Steelers had many opportunities to pull the tag on Starks, particularly when other teams weren't beating down the door with offers to Max. They had to know that once he signed the tender they were on the hook for the 6.9 million. They made a mistake and it was an expensive one.

Pappy


I agree...costly to our team in more ways than 1.

steelblood
09-05-2008, 10:32 AM
Yeah! The Steelers should reaaly be beating the bushes and looking under rocks for linemen cut by every other team in order to possibly find players who probably aren't better than anyone we currently have on the roster and have no familiarity with the Steelers defense...

A player cut by another team NEVER finds a home with a new team and becomes dominant right?

Oh snap...Mike Vrabel anyone?


Pretty sure Vrabel walked as a UFA after 4 seasons and was never cut.

frankthetank1
09-05-2008, 10:39 AM
Yeah! The Steelers should reaaly be beating the bushes and looking under rocks for linemen cut by every other team in order to possibly find players who probably aren't better than anyone we currently have on the roster and have no familiarity with the Steelers defense...

A player cut by another team NEVER finds a home with a new team and becomes dominant right?

Oh snap...Mike Vrabel anyone?


Pretty sure Vrabel walked as a UFA after 4 seasons and was never cut.

who cares about vrabel? the steelers were more than well of for olb's at the time.

BigBen2112
09-05-2008, 11:10 AM
Yeah! The Steelers should reaaly be beating the bushes and looking under rocks for linemen cut by every other team in order to possibly find players who probably aren't better than anyone we currently have on the roster and have no familiarity with the Steelers defense...

A player cut by another team NEVER finds a home with a new team and becomes dominant right?

Oh snap...Mike Vrabel anyone?


Pretty sure Vrabel walked as a UFA after 4 seasons and was never cut.

Yeah I think you are right now that I think about it.