PDA

View Full Version : Steelers franchise Starks



Steelhere10
02-19-2009, 04:50 PM
in postgazette

Steelhere10
02-19-2009, 04:51 PM
Steelers franchise Starks
Thursday, February 19, 2009
By Gerry Dulac, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Steelers have placed the franchise tag on offensive tackle Max Starks, a move that will keep him from entering free agency and guarantee him $8.451 million in salary -- the average of the NFL's top five offensive linemen -- in the 2009 season.

The Steelers will try to work out a long-term deal with Starks, a No. 3 draft choice in 2004 who started 11 games last season at left tackle.

It is the second year in a row the Steelers have used a tag to keep Starks from becoming an unrestricted free agent. He was named a transition player last season, even though he wasn't a starter, and was paid $6.9 million.

Lebsteel
02-19-2009, 04:53 PM
Steelers franchise Starks
Thursday, February 19, 2009
By Gerry Dulac, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Steelers have placed the franchise tag on offensive tackle Max Starks, a move that will keep him from entering free agency and guarantee him $8.451 million in salary -- the average of the NFL's top five offensive linemen -- in the 2009 season.

The Steelers will try to work out a long-term deal with Starks, a No. 3 draft choice in 2004 who started 11 games last season at left tackle.

It is the second year in a row the Steelers have used a tag to keep Starks from becoming an unrestricted free agent. He was named a transition player last season, even though he wasn't a starter, and was paid $6.9 million.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, Oviedo, I have now left Fantasy (Is)land and am now LOST!!!!

AkronSteel
02-19-2009, 04:55 PM
:Clap

It's a good move! Secure what we can secure and try to either work out a long term deal or draft his replacement in April and let it play out for another year. It gives the team security considering all of our OT's are FA's!!!

Steelhere10
02-19-2009, 04:55 PM
i have no problems with it, as long as they discard both guards , center and right tackle.

RuthlessBurgher
02-19-2009, 04:58 PM
I would wait until after the draft to start talking long-term deals with Starks. If one of the stud LT's starts to fall and we have the opportunity to trade up and get one, I would be happy to have Starks for one year and then have the rookie take over after that (perhaps the rookie tackle could start his first year on the right side before moving over to the left side in year two, allowing us to move Colon inside). If we aren't able to get a decent LT prospect in the draft, then start talking long term deals with Starks.

AkronSteel
02-19-2009, 04:58 PM
i have no problems with it, as long as they discard both guards , center and right tackle.

Thats pretty good!!! :lol: It does give the team options though! I would personally go like this!

LT: Starks
LG: Colon
C: Hartwig
RG: Stapleton/Simmons
RT: Rookie

Would probably be a much better situation for our $100 million dollar Super Bowl Clutch QB!

calmkiller
02-19-2009, 04:59 PM
/sigh

I would have rather signed Smith to a one year deal and drafted a Rookie as a replacement. Personally I think Max is a bum, but this is a smart move as it doesn't back us into a corner. We now have a LT under contract for next season, Hopefully we draft his replacement this year.

RuthlessBurgher
02-19-2009, 05:02 PM
The tagline on ESPN.com reads "But will he start? Starks franchised by Steelers"


Steelers tag Starks for second time
By John Clayton
ESPN.com

For the second consecutive season, Pittsburgh Steelers offensive tackle Max Starks received the team's franchise tag -- even though he isn't guaranteed a job as a starter.

Starks became the 13th NFL player tagged before the 4 p.m. ET deadline for such designation. He received a one-year tender at $8.451 million. Last year, Starks had a $6.985 million franchise tender. The franchise number given to Starks this year was based on the average of the top-five cap numbers of offensive linemen around the league from last season.

Any team wishing to sign Starks would have to surrender two first-round draft picks, but the Steelers would have seven days to match any offer and, thus, keep him.

Despite being franchised last year, Starks started the regular season on the bench. Left tackle Marvel Smith had back problems during the season and Starks took over the position and helped the Steelers to their sixth Super Bowl title.

Senior writer John Clayton covers the NFL for ESPN.com.

Clayton's numbers are correct, but he incorrectly states that we used the franchise tag on him last year...it was the transition tag.

Lebsteel
02-19-2009, 05:03 PM
i have no problems with it, as long as they discard both guards , center and right tackle.

Thats pretty good!!! :lol: It does give the team options though! I would personally go like this!

LT: Starks
LG: Colon
C: Hartwig
RG: Stapleton/Simmons
RT: Rookie

Would probably be a much better situation for our $100 million dollar Super Bowl Clutch QB!

Now that we have Starks, I'd like to see:

LT:Starks
LG: Mack/Robinson
C: Hartwig
RG: Simmons/Stapleton/Urbik
RT: Hills/Colon

Iron Shiek
02-19-2009, 05:03 PM
Yup Ruthless I agree. No need to rush to a long term deal just yet. We get some stability and flexibility to go in whatever direction we want to at this point. Fine move by me.

Its interesting what a difference a year makes. Last year we transition him and he gets almost 7 million and you woulda thought this guy took the Michael Vick thing a step further and televised the dog fighting/killing and was getting a contract still.

Now, he gets an additional 1.5 million but most of us are pretty cool with it. Way to reform yourself Fat Max.

WoodleyofTroy
02-19-2009, 05:06 PM
I like it. We get continuity on the line, especially when we know he'll be playing at high level again fighting for his big day. All while bringing along some more talent through the draft at the same time.

AkronSteel
02-19-2009, 05:07 PM
i have no problems with it, as long as they discard both guards , center and right tackle.

Thats pretty good!!! :lol: It does give the team options though! I would personally go like this!

LT: Starks
LG: Colon
C: Hartwig
RG: Stapleton/Simmons
RT: Rookie

Would probably be a much better situation for our $100 million dollar Super Bowl Clutch QB!

Now that we have Starks, I'd like to see:

LT:Starks
LG: Mack/Robinson
C: Hartwig
RG: Simmons/Stapleton/Urbik
RT: Hills/Colon

I would take that but I just really don't wanna see Colon starting at RT! The guy gets Ben killed every time we face an above average speed rusher! I just think we could move Colon inside and it would make for a better situation. I still would like to get Mack or Unger early in the draft and get another tackle in either Round 2 or 3! This line needs rebuilt all the way across! Max did however play pretty good this season when given the opportunity!!!

RuthlessBurgher
02-19-2009, 05:09 PM
i have no problems with it, as long as they discard both guards , center and right tackle.

Thats pretty good!!! :lol: It does give the team options though! I would personally go like this!

LT: Starks
LG: Colon
C: Hartwig
RG: Stapleton/Simmons
RT: Rookie

Would probably be a much better situation for our $100 million dollar Super Bowl Clutch QB!

Now that we have Starks, I'd like to see:

LT:Starks
LG: Mack/Robinson
C: Hartwig
RG: Simmons/Stapleton/Urbik
RT: Hills/Colon

I like the idea of guys like Alex Mack and Kraig Urbik improving our interior o-line.

MaxAMillion
02-19-2009, 05:14 PM
This takes a chunk out of that 19 million that the Steelers had under the cap. Hopefully the team can negotiate a long term deal. I wonder if this means BMac is gone. Oh well, can't keep everyone.

Oviedo
02-19-2009, 05:18 PM
:Clap

It's a good move! Secure what we can secure and try to either work out a long term deal or draft his replacement in April and let it play out for another year. It gives the team security considering all of our OT's are FA's!!!

Exactly. Control what you can control. This takes the pressure off reaching in the draft for a OT who unlikely could start in 2009 and it gives one more year to develop Hills. This is a very smart move by the people who actaully know something about football and don't let emotional feelings about players get in the way of doing what is best for the team.

Now let Kemo walk and offer Marvel a vet minimum with incentives. Sign Essex to back up $$$. This allows us to take a look at the best player for the greatest need in Rounds 1 and 2 whether that be determined to be OL, DL or CB.

AkronSteel
02-19-2009, 05:19 PM
This takes a chunk out of that 19 million that the Steelers had under the cap. Hopefully the team can negotiate a long term deal. I wonder if this means BMac is gone. Oh well, can't keep everyone.

BMac is gone!! Too bad too! The guy is a solid ball player but he is going to get paid way too much!

Iron Shiek
02-19-2009, 05:20 PM
This takes a chunk out of that 19 million that the Steelers had under the cap. Hopefully the team can negotiate a long term deal. I wonder if this means BMac is gone. Oh well, can't keep everyone.


Yes especially with 3 free agent CB's coming off the market in the last 24 hours. Anyone wanting a CB is going to look at BMac first now.

Oviedo
02-19-2009, 05:25 PM
This takes a chunk out of that 19 million that the Steelers had under the cap. Hopefully the team can negotiate a long term deal. I wonder if this means BMac is gone. Oh well, can't keep everyone.

BMac is gone!! Too bad too! The guy is a solid ball player but he is going to get paid way too much!

Bmac was gone about one millisecond after the raiders signed Asomugha for $15M per year and blew the top off the scale for CBs.

Franchising Starks or not franchising him would not have effected that situation one bit.

Bmac was never the priority. The priorities are: Harrison, LT, Heath Miller in that order. Having the dollars to extend Woodley was even more important that Bmac. Bmac was never more than the #4 or 5 priority when you think long term.

DBinAL
02-19-2009, 05:30 PM
It was a very smart business and football move. Now the Steelers can low-ball Marvel Smith and give him a 'take it or leave it' ultimatum. If Marvel is heallthy enough to play LT, then move Starks over to RT. Draft an OT and prepare for 2010.

AkronSteel
02-19-2009, 05:32 PM
:Clap

It's a good move! Secure what we can secure and try to either work out a long term deal or draft his replacement in April and let it play out for another year. It gives the team security considering all of our OT's are FA's!!!

Exactly. Control what you can control. This takes the pressure off reaching in the draft for a OT who unlikely could start in 2009 and it gives one more year to develop Hills. This is a very smart move by the people who actaully know something about football and don't let emotional feelings about players get in the way of doing what is best for the team.

Now let Kemo walk and offer Marvel a vet minimum with incentives. Sign Essex to back up $$$. This allows us to take a look at the best player for the greatest need in Rounds 1 and 2 whether that be determined to be OL, DL or CB.

I agree with everything that you just said except resigning Marvel! The guy is never going to make it back and stay healthy for an entire season or even be someone we can rely on!

With Starks getting the Franchise tag and Colon getting his tender, I would resign Essex for backup money....hope Hills develops....and draft an OT in rounds 1-3, no reason to pigeon hole ourselves with the 1st rounder but we do need to spend a quality pick on an OT in this draft, it is a must!

AkronSteel
02-19-2009, 05:34 PM
This takes a chunk out of that 19 million that the Steelers had under the cap. Hopefully the team can negotiate a long term deal. I wonder if this means BMac is gone. Oh well, can't keep everyone.

BMac is gone!! Too bad too! The guy is a solid ball player but he is going to get paid way too much!

Bmac was gone about one millisecond after the raiders signed Asomugha for $15M per year and blew the top off the scale for CBs.

Franchising Starks or not franchising him would not have effected that situation one bit.

Bmac was never the priority. The priorities are: Harrison, LT, Heath Miller in that order. Having the dollars to extend Woodley was even more important that Bmac. Bmac was never more than the #4 or 5 priority when you think long term.

I agree with that!! Resigning James and Heath and securing the OL for the future are much more important than getting BMac under contract. The team always seems to be able to find CB's to fit the system and with the pass rush that we possess we don't really need to spend crazy $ on a guy that has only started for 15 games in 4 years.

Lebsteel
02-19-2009, 05:43 PM
This takes a chunk out of that 19 million that the Steelers had under the cap. Hopefully the team can negotiate a long term deal. I wonder if this means BMac is gone. Oh well, can't keep everyone.

BMac is gone!! Too bad too! The guy is a solid ball player but he is going to get paid way too much!

Bmac was gone about one millisecond after the raiders signed Asomugha for $15M per year and blew the top off the scale for CBs.

Franchising Starks or not franchising him would not have effected that situation one bit.

Bmac was never the priority. The priorities are: Harrison, LT, Heath Miller in that order. Having the dollars to extend Woodley was even more important that Bmac. Bmac was never more than the #4 or 5 priority when you think long term.

I agree with that!! Resigning James and Heath and securing the OL for the future are much more important than getting BMac under contract. The team always seems to be able to find CB's to fit the system and with the pass rush that we possess we don't really need to spend crazy $ on a guy that has only started for 15 games in 4 years.[/quote]

Akron, not bad, you're on your game today as well!

steelz09
02-19-2009, 05:43 PM
This takes a chunk out of that 19 million that the Steelers had under the cap. Hopefully the team can negotiate a long term deal. I wonder if this means BMac is gone. Oh well, can't keep everyone.

BMac is gone!! Too bad too! The guy is a solid ball player but he is going to get paid way too much!

Bmac was gone about one millisecond after the raiders signed Asomugha for $15M per year and blew the top off the scale for CBs.

Franchising Starks or not franchising him would not have effected that situation one bit.

Bmac was never the priority. The priorities are: Harrison, LT, Heath Miller in that order. Having the dollars to extend Woodley was even more important that Bmac. Bmac was never more than the #4 or 5 priority when you think long term.

Not to high jack the thread but I disagree. I still think that bmac is a priority for the Steelers still. I also think he is easily the #2 CB on the team. What surprised me is I watched NFL live last night and they ranked the 5 top CB's in free agency and bmac wasn't listed. In fact, his name wasn't even mentioned during the whole segment. Also, although he is a solid player, he has never really started a full season, correct? And he was injured for several games this year. That could be hurting his price tag, and Rosenhaus will not be nieve about that aspect.

aggiebones
02-19-2009, 05:45 PM
Any chance that we could trade him now.
Maybe he can reach a contract number with another organization with a top X pick. We ship them Starks and No.32 for their top 10 pick. We grab a future LT.
Sign Marvel for 6-8 weeks whatever he can survive, then go with Mr. rookie. Though Starks would be cheaper than a top 10 LT.
I'd rather go Marvel + rookie future than just 1 more expensive year with Max.


:2c

Oviedo
02-19-2009, 05:51 PM
Any chance that we could trade him now.
Maybe he can reach a contract number with another organization with a top X pick. We ship them Starks and No.32 for their top 10 pick. We grab a future LT.
Sign Marvel for 6-8 weeks whatever he can survive, then go with Mr. rookie. Though Starks would be cheaper than a top 10 LT.
I'd rather go Marvel + rookie future than just 1 more expensive year with Max.


:2c


I'd rather go Marvel + rookie future than just 1 more expensive year with Max.


I think the organozation actually wants to win another championship. You don't do that with a hope and prayer that Marvel is healthy or a rokkie can play LT.

The org did the right thing.

AkronSteel
02-19-2009, 05:52 PM
This takes a chunk out of that 19 million that the Steelers had under the cap. Hopefully the team can negotiate a long term deal. I wonder if this means BMac is gone. Oh well, can't keep everyone.

BMac is gone!! Too bad too! The guy is a solid ball player but he is going to get paid way too much!

Bmac was gone about one millisecond after the raiders signed Asomugha for $15M per year and blew the top off the scale for CBs.

Franchising Starks or not franchising him would not have effected that situation one bit.

Bmac was never the priority. The priorities are: Harrison, LT, Heath Miller in that order. Having the dollars to extend Woodley was even more important that Bmac. Bmac was never more than the #4 or 5 priority when you think long term.

Not to high jack the thread but I disagree. I still think that bmac is a priority for the Steelers still. I also think he is easily the #2 CB on the team. What surprised me is I watched NFL live last night and they ranked the 5 top CB's in free agency and bmac wasn't listed. In fact, his name wasn't even mentioned during the whole segment. Also, although he is a solid player, he has never really started a full season, correct? And he was injured for several games this year. That could be hurting his price tag, and Rosenhaus will not be nieve about that aspect.

I agree J but I just don't see how there will not be a team out there that throws way too much money at a guy that was a starter on the SB Champs! The guy has talent and Rosenhaus will get someone over a barrel. I would love to keep the guy but I wouldn't say that he is one of our top priorities considering that James, Heath, Hines and Keisel are all coming up on contract in 2010.

AkronSteel
02-19-2009, 05:59 PM
Any chance that we could trade him now.
Maybe he can reach a contract number with another organization with a top X pick. We ship them Starks and No.32 for their top 10 pick. We grab a future LT.
Sign Marvel for 6-8 weeks whatever he can survive, then go with Mr. rookie. Though Starks would be cheaper than a top 10 LT.
I'd rather go Marvel + rookie future than just 1 more expensive year with Max.


:2c


I'd rather go Marvel + rookie future than just 1 more expensive year with Max.


I think the organozation actually wants to win another championship. You don't do that with a hope and prayer that Marvel is healthy or a rokkie can play LT.

The org did the right thing.

Yes they did! They did what they had to do to make sure that we had an opportunity to compete for the big show next year as well! Max isn't top of the line talent but he was good enough this year and will be the same next!

Chadman
02-19-2009, 06:01 PM
As Chadman & Big O have said a couple of times, it's unlikely the Steelers could have gotten BETTER than Max Starks through FA (Carey & Barnes are no gaurentee to be better) or through the draft (picking at #32 the Steelers could look at the 5th, 6th or even the 7th rated OT- not ideal for immediate starting!) so getting Max back is a smart move.

The Steelers can now focus on one of the top interior OL, the top rated RT, DL or CB at #32.

Oviedo
02-19-2009, 06:06 PM
As Chadman & Big O have said a couple of times, it's unlikely the Steelers could have gotten BETTER than Max Starks through FA (Carey & Barnes are no gaurentee to be better) or through the draft (picking at #32 the Steelers could look at the 5th, 6th or even the 7th rated OT- not ideal for immediate starting!) so getting Max back is a smart move.

The Steelers can now focus on one of the top interior OL, the top rated RT, DL or CB at #32.

G'day mate. You are really smart and rationale. You remind me of...me
:wink:

Ozey74
02-19-2009, 06:14 PM
Makes sense. The Steelers have several FA on the OL. Might as well franchise the best one. It's hard to doubt our FO, they know what they are doing 99% of the time.


:tt2

Lebsteel
02-19-2009, 06:19 PM
Makes sense. The Steelers have several FA on the OL. Might as well franchise the best one. It's hard to doubt our FO, they know what they are doing 99% of the time.


:tt2

:Agree I just really wanted to see us get a top-level LT, we couldn't, so I guess this was the best way to go! MAYBE Starks will continue to develop, work hard on his conditioning and become one of the top-level guys. It will be interesting to see if he signs a long-term deal with the Steelers. If Gross is getting $10 mil/year, then maybe we can sign Starks for $6 to $7 mil for five years??? Is he worth more than that?

SidSmythe
02-19-2009, 07:41 PM
How cool would it be if a team desperate for a LT signed him. Like the Detroit Lions!! :tt2

decleater
02-19-2009, 07:52 PM
The tagline on ESPN.com reads "But will he start? Starks franchised by Steelers"


Steelers tag Starks for second time
By John Clayton
ESPN.com

For the second consecutive season, Pittsburgh Steelers offensive tackle Max Starks received the team's franchise tag -- even though he isn't guaranteed a job as a starter.

Starks became the 13th NFL player tagged before the 4 p.m. ET deadline for such designation. He received a one-year tender at $8.451 million. Last year, Starks had a $6.985 million franchise tender. The franchise number given to Starks this year was based on the average of the top-five cap numbers of offensive linemen around the league from last season.

Any team wishing to sign Starks would have to surrender two first-round draft picks, but the Steelers would have seven days to match any offer and, thus, keep him.

Despite being franchised last year, Starks started the regular season on the bench. Left tackle Marvel Smith had back problems during the season and Starks took over the position and helped the Steelers to their sixth Super Bowl title.

Senior writer John Clayton covers the NFL for ESPN.com.

Clayton's numbers are correct, but he incorrectly states that we used the franchise tag on him last year...it was the transition tag.
You are 100% correct! :tt1

ikestops85
02-19-2009, 08:36 PM
Sorry but I'm not a fan of this move. We are paying Starks as roughly the 3rd best LT in the league. I think we could have signed someone like Barnes for far less per year and even if he isn't better than Max we still save on the cap. Of course there is a reason I'm posting on a message board instead of working for the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers Front Office. :lol:

Discipline of Steel
02-19-2009, 09:06 PM
The Steelers did the best thing they could. They gave FattMaxx another one year contract to keep him hungry. hahaha

Mick'sTeam
02-19-2009, 10:53 PM
/sigh

I would have rather signed Smith to a one year deal and drafted a Rookie as a replacement. Personally I think Max is a bum, but this is a smart move as it doesn't back us into a corner. We now have a LT under contract for next season, Hopefully we draft his replacement this year.

Only problem with signing Smith and drafting a rookie is that rookie would have to be ready to step in by week 3 when Smith gets placed on IR again with back injuries.

IMO, at this time, Starks is the better option between he and Smith.

mshifko
02-19-2009, 10:55 PM
max shut down bertrand berry in the super bowl and he was phenomenal in the post season...he's a big body, natural lefty, and he's a decent left tackle...we don't need help on that spot of the oline...we need to work on our right tackle options and as well as the guard/center issue...keep in mind we have kendall simmons back, so darnell will have a whole year of experience under his belt...

careydavis
02-20-2009, 03:16 AM
Makes sense. The Steelers have several FA on the OL. Might as well franchise the best one. It's hard to doubt our FO, they know what they are doing 99% of the time.


:tt2

Yes, Especially when it comes to Offensive lines. :roll:

careydavis
02-20-2009, 03:20 AM
max shut down bertrand berry in the super bowl and ...

Max Starks at 1:03

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e85a1f

Oviedo
02-20-2009, 09:24 AM
max shut down bertrand berry in the super bowl and he was phenomenal in the post season...he's a big body, natural lefty, and he's a decent left tackle...we don't need help on that spot of the oline...we need to work on our right tackle options and as well as the guard/center issue...keep in mind we have kendall simmons back, so darnell will have a whole year of experience under his belt...

You are thinking smart like a member of the front office. You are correct. This was a smart move because it means that there is no need to get into a bidding war for another LT or reach in the draft. We keep a known quantity and solid performer in the fold.

I'm not sure Simmons can ever come back to top form and I think that we need to focus in the draft on solidifying the interior of the OL which was our weakness last season.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
02-20-2009, 03:43 PM
Starks was the safest and most likely cheapest solution to a major problem. After the Gross contract, Carey & Barnes priced out of the Steelers range. It would not surprise me if both get deals more than Starks Franchise tag. Gross's contract had a major impact on the market and the Steelers actually might have ended up taking the cheaper way out and getting an equal quality player. If I had 8.5 to choose any of the three I might have picked differently. I just think now Carey & Barnes have bargaining power because there is a drop off after them in talent, youth, and most importantly quantity of OT available!!! This move allows the FO to concentrate on the interior of the OL & DL. Get Washington under contract and no reason to overpay for Kemo or McFadden now. If they loose Kemo and McFadden they now could use one of their first 4 picks to replace them. You can get a starting G in the 1st three rounds. Gay or a FA gets pushed to #2 CB and you can get a #3/#4 CB in the first three rounds. When the tag hit Starks...The Nation should have let out a sigh!!!

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
02-20-2009, 03:47 PM
...And now I just heard Carey is off the market so the Starks tag looks even smarter!!!

Oviedo
02-20-2009, 03:49 PM
Sorry but I'm not a fan of this move. We are paying Starks as roughly the 3rd best LT in the league. I think we could have signed someone like Barnes for far less per year and even if he isn't better than Max we still save on the cap. Of course there is a reason I'm posting on a message board instead of working for the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers Front Office. :lol:

Why do you think Barnes is an improvement. He gave up more sacks last season than Max. His play has declined over the past couple of years and he is not a good character guy with some off field issues.

Max is a first rate character guy who shows the potential for being a leader on the OL.

Max is the better deal and everyone just has to realize that a 4-5 year veteran LT is going to get $7+ million after the recent Gross contract. Max has 2 Super Bowl rings. You don't pay guys like that $4M.

feltdizz
02-20-2009, 04:16 PM
max shut down bertrand berry in the super bowl and he was phenomenal in the post season...he's a big body, natural lefty, and he's a decent left tackle...we don't need help on that spot of the oline...we need to work on our right tackle options and as well as the guard/center issue...keep in mind we have kendall simmons back, so darnell will have a whole year of experience under his belt...

You are thinking smart like a member of the front office. You are correct. This was a smart move because it means that there is no need to get into a bidding war for another LT or reach in the draft. We keep a known quantity and solid performer in the fold.

I'm not sure Simmons can ever come back to top form and I think that we need to focus in the draft on solidifying the interior of the OL which was our weakness last season.

we won the SB with this OL for goodness sakes.. they were hurt, young and inexperienced as a unit. If you were the GM would you go OL first round? I wouldn't. You work with what you have and get the BPA in the first round.

Bmac is gone so we will probably go CB in the first round.

feltdizz
02-20-2009, 04:22 PM
Not to high jack the thread but I disagree. I still think that bmac is a priority for the Steelers still. I also think he is easily the #2 CB on the team. What surprised me is I watched NFL live last night and they ranked the 5 top CB's in free agency and bmac wasn't listed. In fact, his name wasn't even mentioned during the whole segment. Also, although he is a solid player, he has never really started a full season, correct? And he was injured for several games this year. That could be hurting his price tag, and Rosenhaus will not be nieve about that aspect.

our CB's aren't lock down corners.. they are more zone and 1 CB's... they protect areas more then they play man to man and rarely bump and cover.

BMac is over rated by Steeler fans IMO... I'm saw no difference and actually thought we improved with Gay at CB. He seems to be more ballhawkish then BMac IMO..

Where we really begging for BMac when he went down? I don't remember people saying "we need BMac we getting burned without him."

Oviedo
02-20-2009, 04:40 PM
Not to high jack the thread but I disagree. I still think that bmac is a priority for the Steelers still. I also think he is easily the #2 CB on the team. What surprised me is I watched NFL live last night and they ranked the 5 top CB's in free agency and bmac wasn't listed. In fact, his name wasn't even mentioned during the whole segment. Also, although he is a solid player, he has never really started a full season, correct? And he was injured for several games this year. That could be hurting his price tag, and Rosenhaus will not be nieve about that aspect.

our CB's aren't lock down corners.. they are more zone and 1 CB's... they protect areas more then they play man to man and rarely bump and cover.

BMac is over rated by Steeler fans IMO... I'm saw no difference and actually thought we improved with Gay at CB. He seems to be more ballhawkish then BMac IMO..

Where we really begging for BMac when he went down? I don't remember people saying "we need BMac we getting burned without him."

That is why I have always argued against the notion of getting the mythical "Shutdown CB." The requirements on the CB in our defense is not the same as in others. This is good because it allows us to get and keep more reasonably priced CBs versus doing something stupid at $15M per year like the Raiders did for Asomugha. When you start paying your CBs like QBs you are going to suffer at a lot of other critical positions. More critical in our defense the way LaBeau runs it are LBs, NTs and SS.

steelz09
02-20-2009, 05:45 PM
Not to high jack the thread but I disagree. I still think that bmac is a priority for the Steelers still. I also think he is easily the #2 CB on the team. What surprised me is I watched NFL live last night and they ranked the 5 top CB's in free agency and bmac wasn't listed. In fact, his name wasn't even mentioned during the whole segment. Also, although he is a solid player, he has never really started a full season, correct? And he was injured for several games this year. That could be hurting his price tag, and Rosenhaus will not be nieve about that aspect.

our CB's aren't lock down corners.. they are more zone and 1 CB's... they protect areas more then they play man to man and rarely bump and cover.

BMac is over rated by Steeler fans IMO... I'm saw no difference and actually thought we improved with Gay at CB. He seems to be more ballhawkish then BMac IMO..

Where we really begging for BMac when he went down? I don't remember people saying "we need BMac we getting burned without him."

It's a two-headed monster really. Our pass rush was very good this year which always make the CB's look good. However, it can work in reverse. I think this core of CB's are the best we've had in a long long time and I would like to see it stay that way. I like Gay (did that come out right??, lol) but I think we should still sign bmac if it's possible without jeopardizing miller, harrison, and woodley. bmac has good ball skills and is more physical while gay is more "ball hawkish". In this league u need to be AT LEAST 4 deep in quality CB's.

I'm not saying we'll sign mcfadden but I'm a little surprised he's not already gone or there isn't news on other teams very interested. Either he's asking for big money or teams aren't knocking down the door for him. If we lose him, I feel confident with Gay as our starter and drafting a rookie nickle back. But if he is, we're solid and could focus more on the big ugles in the 1st several rounds of the draft which is what I'd like to see.

Oviedo
02-20-2009, 06:00 PM
Not to high jack the thread but I disagree. I still think that bmac is a priority for the Steelers still. I also think he is easily the #2 CB on the team. What surprised me is I watched NFL live last night and they ranked the 5 top CB's in free agency and bmac wasn't listed. In fact, his name wasn't even mentioned during the whole segment. Also, although he is a solid player, he has never really started a full season, correct? And he was injured for several games this year. That could be hurting his price tag, and Rosenhaus will not be nieve about that aspect.

our CB's aren't lock down corners.. they are more zone and 1 CB's... they protect areas more then they play man to man and rarely bump and cover.

BMac is over rated by Steeler fans IMO... I'm saw no difference and actually thought we improved with Gay at CB. He seems to be more ballhawkish then BMac IMO..

Where we really begging for BMac when he went down? I don't remember people saying "we need BMac we getting burned without him."

It's a two-headed monster really. Our pass rush was very good this year which always make the CB's look good. However, it can work in reverse. I think this core of CB's are the best we've had in a long long time and I would like to see it stay that way. I like Gay (did that come out right??, lol) but I think we should still sign bmac if it's possible without jeopardizing miller, harrison, and woodley. bmac has good ball skills and is more physical while gay is more "ball hawkish". In this league u need to be AT LEAST 4 deep in quality CB's.

I'm not saying we'll sign mcfadden but I'm a little surprised he's not already gone or there isn't news on other teams very interested. Either he's asking for big money or teams aren't knocking down the door for him. If we lose him, I feel confident with Gay as our starter and drafting a rookie nickle back. But if he is, we're solid and could focus more on the big ugles in the 1st several rounds of the draft which is what I'd like to see.

Teams can't mention targeting Bmac until Feb 27th or they are guilty of tampering. It is against NFL rules to specifically mention names you are interested in before that date.

Up until Feb 27th is exclusive right to negotiate for the current team.

I agree that you need 4 and when Bmac leave, and don't doubt for one second he won't, I would seriously look at Leigh Bodden and see if he checks out.