PDA

View Full Version : Would Colbert Dare...



SteelStallion
02-27-2009, 07:42 PM
...would he dare NOT go o-line at #32 with his strict BPA ideology even despite the obvious need and even despite having the most sacked QB in the NFL?

BradshawsHairdresser
02-27-2009, 08:14 PM
...would he dare NOT go o-line at #32 with his strict BPA ideology even despite the obvious need and even despite having the most sacked QB in the NFL?

Hey, with the recent signings, he's basically got the Super Bowl-winning offensive line returning...and anyway (as some posters here have pointed out), you really can't expect to get much improvement through the draft....so I'd say chances are very good that Colbert WON'T go O-line at #32.

SteelerOfDeVille
02-27-2009, 08:19 PM
bpa... if a lineman is there... he'd take him... but, if somebody falls... he'll take him.

can't disagree...say Rey Mauluga is there, or a guard that you have rated as a 3rd rounder. you'd pass on him???

NKySteeler
02-27-2009, 09:00 PM
At #32 (without trading-up) any O-lineman picked would end-up a "project" like Hills.... If the objective is to obtain a quality linemen early, than we have to trade-up to get someone that can start relatively soon.... IMHO....

WoodleyofTroy
02-27-2009, 09:09 PM
...would he dare NOT go o-line at #32 with his strict BPA ideology even despite the obvious need and even despite having the most sacked QB in the NFL?

Hey, with the recent signings, he's basically got the Super Bowl-winning offensive line returning...and anyway (as some posters here have pointed out), you really can't expect to get much improvement through the draft....so I'd say chances are very good that Colbert WON'T go O-line at #32.

You guys do realize the Steelers are picking at #32 and not #23 right? The best players available usually are #1 Guards and #1 Centers around that area.

steelz09
02-27-2009, 09:11 PM
I still think Mack may be BPA at #32. Duke Robinson will probably be a viable option there as well although I don't think the Steelers will draft Duke.

For some reason, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the Steelers draft a LB in round 1 again. Also, Is it me or is the CB and S (free safety) class weak this year?

mshifko
02-27-2009, 09:26 PM
they'll look at OL first i would imagine, then go from there...if they feel they can grab an offensive lineman in round 2, look for them to go defense in the first IMO

SteelBucks
02-27-2009, 09:48 PM
...would he dare NOT go o-line at #32 with his strict BPA ideology even despite the obvious need and even despite having the most sacked QB in the NFL?

The Steelers will do what they always do and take the BPA. If it's an o-lineman or not, so be it. Last thing I want them to do is "reach" just because they have a need.

Mister Pittsburgh
02-27-2009, 10:47 PM
At #32 (without trading-up) any O-lineman picked would end-up a "project" like Hills.... If the objective is to obtain a quality linemen early, than we have to trade-up to get someone that can start relatively soon.... IMHO....

How far would our pick in the 3rd and say a 5th round pick get us up in the draft? Or say a 3rd and a 4th to be crazy.

WoodleyofTroy
02-27-2009, 10:49 PM
At #32 (without trading-up) any O-lineman picked would end-up a "project" like Hills.... If the objective is to obtain a quality linemen early, than we have to trade-up to get someone that can start relatively soon.... IMHO....

How far would our pick in the 3rd and say a 5th round pick get us up in the draft? Or say a 3rd and a 4th to be crazy.

It would just move you up in that round. Towards the top.

costanza2k1
02-27-2009, 10:54 PM
At #32 (without trading-up) any O-lineman picked would end-up a "project" like Hills.... If the objective is to obtain a quality linemen early, than we have to trade-up to get someone that can start relatively soon.... IMHO....

Or if we don't see who we want at our pick and have to resort to "BPA" like last year why not trade down and pick up more projects than someone who may not contribute right away anyhow...

SteelStallion
02-28-2009, 12:04 AM
All good points. But let me rephrase.

Yes we won the SB. But we as Steeler fans know better than any casual fan or pundit what our one glaring weakness is. We're not suprised to hear that our franchise qb is the most sacked quarterback in football statistically over the last x number of years. And yes we won it but we know full well how banged up he was. And we remember the 20+ years that we had to wait since our last franchise qb, and therefore the last legit SB run. And yes we won it yet despite the adrenaline pumping soundbytes from offensive playmakers we're like 22 or 23 in offense.

Now it's draft day and I think it's a very reasonable assumtpion that there will be some high quality o-linemen at #32 that are more than worthy of the #32 pick, definitely at center, probably at guard too. I'm not talking about a reach pick or a controversal pick. Now we all know Colbert and he sais that he ranks every player and goes strictly by his 'board.' What I'm asking is let's say the first round plays out where there's a big run at some position (tackle, qb, whatever) and similar to last year some marquee player drops to #32 who was expected to be top 20- wr, rb, cb, whatever- is Colbert such an ideologue that he bypasses the OL pick that is both high quality and need and picks the non-need player just because he's a few slots higher on a virtual reality chalkboard?

steelcityrules!!
02-28-2009, 12:07 AM
my god... ray mauluga, lawrence timmons, james harrison, and lamarr woodley?

we would have the most dominant LBing corps ever assembled, and thats not even counting all-pro James Farrior and larry foote.

count me in.

AkronSteel
02-28-2009, 12:11 AM
BPA....as long as it isn't a QB or TE! I think that the 1st rounder is probably any of 4 positions.....OL, DL, CB, WR!

papillon
02-28-2009, 12:21 AM
BPA....as long as it isn't a QB or TE! I think that the 1st rounder is probably any of 4 positions.....OL, DL, CB, WR!

Quoted for truth. The Steelers will have players ranked from 1 to 32 and will take the highest rated player remaining when they select in the first round. The only positions not in the fold are QB and TE (and, of course, special teams only players). All other positions are available for selection.

Pappy

WoodleyofTroy
02-28-2009, 12:30 AM
http://www.scoutsnotebook.com/modules.php?name=mockdraft0809

I wonder if that site is ran by a Steelers fan lol.

RuthlessBurgher
02-28-2009, 12:32 AM
At #32 (without trading-up) any O-lineman picked would end-up a "project" like Hills.... If the objective is to obtain a quality linemen early, than we have to trade-up to get someone that can start relatively soon.... IMHO....

How far would our pick in the 3rd and say a 5th round pick get us up in the draft? Or say a 3rd and a 4th to be crazy.

The last time we were supposed to pick 32nd after winning SBXL, we traded our 3rd and 4th round picks to move up to the Giant's pick at #25 overall to take Santonio.

buckeyehoppy
02-28-2009, 02:21 PM
http://www.scoutsnotebook.com/modules.php?name=mockdraft0809

I wonder if that site is ran by a Steelers fan lol.

If this guy is right, I'd be VERY happy with the selection.

Look, the Steelers are one injury away from perceived disaster on the OL assuming Hills, Capizzi and Parquet don't step up or improve. Drafting an OL in the first will address depth, at least, and will quell concerns lest those injuries do occur.

If this guy is right, that's at least the starting RT next season. And you take him and groom him at LT. Remember, Starks isn't on paper past next season and, quite frankly, he is a player who will always need to be pushed. Before you give Starks a long term deal, the Steelers owe it to themselves to see how Starks responds to pressure for his job.

RuthlessBurgher
02-28-2009, 02:29 PM
http://www.scoutsnotebook.com/modules.php?name=mockdraft0809

I wonder if that site is ran by a Steelers fan lol.

If this guy is right, I'd be VERY happy with the selection.

Look, the Steelers are one injury away from perceived disaster on the OL assuming Hills, Capizzi and Parquet don't step up or improve. Drafting an OL in the first will address depth, at least, and will quell concerns lest those injuries do occur.

If this guy is right, that's at least the starting RT next season. And you take him and groom him at LT. Remember, Starks isn't on paper past next season and, quite frankly, he is a player who will always need to be pushed. Before you give Starks a long term deal, the Steelers owe it to themselves to see how Starks responds to pressure for his job.

Yeah, a little unrealistic there...3 TE's going in the first round (including Shawn Nelson, who is likely a mid-rounder at best) but Oher falls to #32? Not bloody likely. I would love to trade up to get Oher if he slides down near 20-ish, though.

buckeyehoppy
02-28-2009, 02:29 PM
Of course, if Alex Mack was there and was BPA you take him, too.

I know I've been hammering the T slot on the OL. But you might be able to find such a player at the end of Round 2. The draft is not an exact science. It's how players fall. We benefited from that when we got Woodley.

And what if Tyson Jackson falls in Round 1? He'd be hard to ignore and the Steelers need to get younger on the DL and start grooming replacements there.

All kinds of options. And the Steelers are going to blow a $hitload of smoke until the draft. But I would be hard pressed to find areas of need that are any more obvious for the Steelers than the OL and DL. And just because those units played well enough to win the team a SB this year, it would be foolish to suggest that they can repeat the performance next year, especially if anyone gets hurt.

WoodleyofTroy
02-28-2009, 02:33 PM
Of course, if Alex Mack was there and was BPA you take him, too.

I know I've been hammering the T slot on the OL. But you might be able to find such a player at the end of Round 2. The draft is not an exact science. It's how players fall. We benefited from that when we got Woodley.

And what if Tyson Jackson falls in Round 1? He'd be hard to ignore and the Steelers need to get younger on the DL and start grooming replacements there.

All kinds of options. And the Steelers are going to blow a $hitload of smoke until the draft. But I would be hard pressed to find areas of need that are any more obvious for the Steelers than the OL and DL. And just because those units played well enough to win the team a SB this year, it would be foolish to suggest that they can repeat the performance next year, especially if anyone gets hurt.

All this makes sense, but if Oher is there at #32, everything else goes out the window and you run up to the podium. I hate using the words "never" and "no way" when it comes to the Draft because you can always expect the unexpected, but I can assure you that he won't be there at #32.

WoodleyofTroy
02-28-2009, 02:33 PM
http://www.scoutsnotebook.com/modules.php?name=mockdraft0809

I wonder if that site is ran by a Steelers fan lol.

If this guy is right, I'd be VERY happy with the selection.

Look, the Steelers are one injury away from perceived disaster on the OL assuming Hills, Capizzi and Parquet don't step up or improve. Drafting an OL in the first will address depth, at least, and will quell concerns lest those injuries do occur.

If this guy is right, that's at least the starting RT next season. And you take him and groom him at LT. Remember, Starks isn't on paper past next season and, quite frankly, he is a player who will always need to be pushed. Before you give Starks a long term deal, the Steelers owe it to themselves to see how Starks responds to pressure for his job.

Yeah, a little unrealistic there...3 TE's going in the first round (including Shawn Nelson, who is likely a mid-rounder at best) but Oher falls to #32? Not bloody likely. I would love to trade up to get Oher if he slides down near 20-ish, though.

He's got Brian Robiskie going in the first round as well.

buckeyehoppy
02-28-2009, 02:43 PM
http://www.scoutsnotebook.com/modules.php?name=mockdraft0809

I wonder if that site is ran by a Steelers fan lol.

If this guy is right, I'd be VERY happy with the selection.

Look, the Steelers are one injury away from perceived disaster on the OL assuming Hills, Capizzi and Parquet don't step up or improve. Drafting an OL in the first will address depth, at least, and will quell concerns lest those injuries do occur.

If this guy is right, that's at least the starting RT next season. And you take him and groom him at LT. Remember, Starks isn't on paper past next season and, quite frankly, he is a player who will always need to be pushed. Before you give Starks a long term deal, the Steelers owe it to themselves to see how Starks responds to pressure for his job.

Yeah, a little unrealistic there...3 TE's going in the first round (including Shawn Nelson, who is likely a mid-rounder at best) but Oher falls to #32? Not bloody likely. I would love to trade up to get Oher if he slides down near 20-ish, though.

Yeah...I am sure the Steelers would have to trade up to get Michael Oher. But he would start immediately at RT if drafted. Plus, the Steelers recent trends suggest that they are not averse to trading up to get a need.

I like the way Oher plays. He has good feet and doesn't seem rattled by the prospect of blocking in passing situations. It would seem he would be a good fit to trade up for because he would make Starks expendable and if Hills or Capizzi were to play themselves into contention on the right side, that would be a great scenario.

buckeyehoppy
02-28-2009, 02:53 PM
http://www.scoutsnotebook.com/modules.php?name=mockdraft0809

I wonder if that site is ran by a Steelers fan lol.

If this guy is right, I'd be VERY happy with the selection.

Look, the Steelers are one injury away from perceived disaster on the OL assuming Hills, Capizzi and Parquet don't step up or improve. Drafting an OL in the first will address depth, at least, and will quell concerns lest those injuries do occur.

If this guy is right, that's at least the starting RT next season. And you take him and groom him at LT. Remember, Starks isn't on paper past next season and, quite frankly, he is a player who will always need to be pushed. Before you give Starks a long term deal, the Steelers owe it to themselves to see how Starks responds to pressure for his job.

Yeah, a little unrealistic there...3 TE's going in the first round (including Shawn Nelson, who is likely a mid-rounder at best) but Oher falls to #32? Not bloody likely. I would love to trade up to get Oher if he slides down near 20-ish, though.

He's got Brian Robiskie going in the first round as well.

So we have to consider the source. I don't think Oher being there at #32 is a realistic scenario. But the draft always has funny $hit happening. You just don't know. I can't really lose sleep, because I am pretty sure someone like Mack will be there when we draft at #32. Plus, if the Steelers doubt that he'll be there and they do want him, they have proven that they are not averse to trading up and they have extra picks down the draft to do just that.

BrownSteel
02-28-2009, 08:58 PM
but if Mack, Oher, and Jackson are there, who would be the pick at #32?

RuthlessBurgher
02-28-2009, 10:43 PM
but if Mack, Oher, and Jackson are there, who would be the pick at #32?

If Oher was there, you don't think about it for more than a second. Left tackle prospects are much harder to find than center prospects and 3-4 DE prospects (even though I really like Mack and Jackson as well...I would be happy if any of those 3 guys ended up being our top pick). Oher could play RT for you in 2009 before moving over to LT in 2010, with Colon replacing Stapleton at RG and Starks holding down the fort at LT in 2009. Since both Colon and Starks have one year deals right now, you could sign one or the other to a long term deal to be the bookend tackle opposite Oher for the foreseeable future, who you would get relatively cheap for the next 4-5 years of his rookie contract.

Of course, there is no way he will be there...we would have to trade up to get him, and we'd have to pay handsomely to do so. I would still like to see us trade up for him if he is within reasonable reach. Neither of our tackles are signed to more than a one year deal. If you want to build stability along the line, getting a guy like this would be a solid start.

The more interesting question would be...what would you do if Andre Smith were there? Personally, I'd take him. I think the combine incident was primarily a misunderstanding and lack of communication instead of some red flag maturity issue, and that guy could still be a beast in this league.

SteelStallion
03-01-2009, 01:10 AM
Smith won't be there either. And in the absence of a trade, I'm convinced they go center at #32.

papillon
03-01-2009, 01:28 AM
but if Mack, Oher, and Jackson are there, who would be the pick at #32?

I'd take Jackson, the Steelers are going to be thin at defensive line sooner than they are on the offensive line. Then I'd try to see what I could do to move up in the second round and potentially still get Mack (unlikely, I know, but it's what I'd try). If the Steelers took Jackson at 1.32, Oher would be the next pick off the board and Mack would be following soon.

Pappy

Discipline of Steel
03-01-2009, 02:07 AM
At #32 (without trading-up) any O-lineman picked would end-up a "project" like Hills.... If the objective is to obtain a quality linemen early, than we have to trade-up to get someone that can start relatively soon.... IMHO....

How far would our pick in the 3rd and say a 5th round pick get us up in the draft? Or say a 3rd and a 4th to be crazy.

It would just move you up in that round. Towards the top.

I think i remember Ruthless has a value chart that said our 1st, 3rd and 5th would get us up into the mid teens, 1st 3rd and 4th a little higher. No thanx...

Why would anyone want another 1st round LB? We already have 5 starters for 4 positions plus Davis, Woods, Fox, Bailey. I see no need for a LB at all

feltdizz
03-01-2009, 04:25 AM
WE probably go DL or CB with the first pick...

ain't no effin way I pick OL at #32 a year after winning a SB unless the player I want is staring me in the face at 32...

screw the fans and their whining about the OL.. we won a SB and our QB takes sacks regardless... took 30+ when we had a great OL in 2004...

WoodleyofTroy
03-01-2009, 08:00 AM
[quote=NKySteeler]At #32 (without trading-up) any O-lineman picked would end-up a "project" like Hills.... If the objective is to obtain a quality linemen early, than we have to trade-up to get someone that can start relatively soon.... IMHO....

How far would our pick in the 3rd and say a 5th round pick get us up in the draft? Or say a 3rd and a 4th to be crazy.

It would just move you up in that round. Towards the top.

I think i remember Ruthless has a value chart that said our 1st, 3rd and 5th would get us up into the mid teens, 1st 3rd and 4th a little higher. No thanx...

Why would anyone want another 1st round LB? We already have 5 starters for 4 positions plus Davis, Woods, Fox, Bailey. I see no need for a LB at all[/quote:seg6jk07]

You can always count me in for me Linebackers, but honestly, I think we need to spend some of that top level money around to other positions oppose to it being wrapped up in one (Harrison, Woodley, Timmons) by throwing another 1st rounder in the mix.

Lebsteel
03-01-2009, 09:58 AM
http://www.sportznutz.com/nfl/draft/draft_point_value_chart.htm

According to this chart, in order to move from 32 to 15 (mid-teens), a difference of 460 points, we would have to give up our 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th round picks. Not going to happen.

RuthlessBurgher
03-01-2009, 11:41 AM
[quote=NKySteeler]At #32 (without trading-up) any O-lineman picked would end-up a "project" like Hills.... If the objective is to obtain a quality linemen early, than we have to trade-up to get someone that can start relatively soon.... IMHO....

How far would our pick in the 3rd and say a 5th round pick get us up in the draft? Or say a 3rd and a 4th to be crazy.

It would just move you up in that round. Towards the top.

I think i remember Ruthless has a value chart that said our 1st, 3rd and 5th would get us up into the mid teens, 1st 3rd and 4th a little higher. No thanx...

Why would anyone want another 1st round LB? We already have 5 starters for 4 positions plus Davis, Woods, Fox, Bailey. I see no need for a LB at all[/quote:2j5t74c2]

Here is the information that I posted a couple of weeks ago:

http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5420&hilit=4th


The last time we picked last in the draft, we traded up

We sent our 1st (32), 3rd (96), and 4th (128) to the Giants for their 1st (25) in order to take Santonio Holmes. The Giants got DE Matthias Kiwanuka, LB Gerris Wilkinson, and OT Guy Whimper. I was happy with who they got at the time, but unhappy with the price that we had to pay to do business (we gave 750 points on the draft trade value chart for a pick worth 720 points...in order for the points to work out evenly, we should have give our 1st, 3rd, and 6th for the Giants' first, or else gotten the Giants' 1st and 5th for our 1st, 3rd, and 4th, but sometimes the team that wants to trade up has to pay a little bit more, and this was not outrageous). However, 3 years later, now that Santonio has a Super Bowl MVP, I would say that it was certainly worth it.

This year, since we should get an untradeable comp pick at the end of the 3rd round for Faneca, plus have an extra pick in the middle of the 7th round for Mahan, we will likely have 9 picks. The stars may be aligning for another trade-up scenario to go get the guy we want.

Here are some possibilities according to the values ascribed to our picks in the draft trade value chart:

Our 1st (32), 2nd (64), and 3rd (96) round picks add up to 976 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of San Diego's 16th pick (1000 pts.) or the Jets' 17th pick (950 pts.).

Our 1st (32), 2nd (64), and 4th (128) round picks add up to 904 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of Chicago's 18th pick (900 pts.).

Our 1st (32) and 2nd (64) round picks add up to 860 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of Tampa's 19th pick (875 pts.) or Detroit's 20th pick (850 pts.).

Our 1st (32), 3rd (96), and 4th (128) round picks add up to 750 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of New England's 23rd pick (760 pts.) or Atlanta's 24th pick (740 pts.).

Our 1st (32) and 3rd (96) round picks add up to 706 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of Miami's 25th pick (720 pts.) or Baltimore's 26th pick (700 pts.).

Our 1st (32) and 4th (128) round picks add up to 634 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of the Giants' 29th pick (640 pts.) or Tennessee's 30th pick (620 pts.) .

Our 2nd (64) and 3rd (96) round picks add up to 386 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of Dallas' 51st pick (390 pts.) or the Jets' 52nd pick (380 pts.).

Our 2nd (64) and 4th (128) round picks add up to 314 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of New England's 58th pick (320 pts.) or Carolina's 59th pick (310 pts.).

Oviedo
03-01-2009, 12:01 PM
[quote=NKySteeler]At #32 (without trading-up) any O-lineman picked would end-up a "project" like Hills.... If the objective is to obtain a quality linemen early, than we have to trade-up to get someone that can start relatively soon.... IMHO....

How far would our pick in the 3rd and say a 5th round pick get us up in the draft? Or say a 3rd and a 4th to be crazy.

It would just move you up in that round. Towards the top.

I think i remember Ruthless has a value chart that said our 1st, 3rd and 5th would get us up into the mid teens, 1st 3rd and 4th a little higher. No thanx...

Why would anyone want another 1st round LB? We already have 5 starters for 4 positions plus Davis, Woods, Fox, Bailey. I see no need for a LB at all

Here is the information that I posted a couple of weeks ago:

http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5420&hilit=4th


The last time we picked last in the draft, we traded up

We sent our 1st (32), 3rd (96), and 4th (128) to the Giants for their 1st (25) in order to take Santonio Holmes. The Giants got DE Matthias Kiwanuka, LB Gerris Wilkinson, and OT Guy Whimper. I was happy with who they got at the time, but unhappy with the price that we had to pay to do business (we gave 750 points on the draft trade value chart for a pick worth 720 points...in order for the points to work out evenly, we should have give our 1st, 3rd, and 6th for the Giants' first, or else gotten the Giants' 1st and 5th for our 1st, 3rd, and 4th, but sometimes the team that wants to trade up has to pay a little bit more, and this was not outrageous). However, 3 years later, now that Santonio has a Super Bowl MVP, I would say that it was certainly worth it.

This year, since we should get an untradeable comp pick at the end of the 3rd round for Faneca, plus have an extra pick in the middle of the 7th round for Mahan, we will likely have 9 picks. The stars may be aligning for another trade-up scenario to go get the guy we want.

Here are some possibilities according to the values ascribed to our picks in the draft trade value chart:

Our 1st (32), 2nd (64), and 3rd (96) round picks add up to 976 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of San Diego's 16th pick (1000 pts.) or the Jets' 17th pick (950 pts.).

Our 1st (32), 2nd (64), and 4th (128) round picks add up to 904 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of Chicago's 18th pick (900 pts.).

Our 1st (32) and 2nd (64) round picks add up to 860 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of Tampa's 19th pick (875 pts.) or Detroit's 20th pick (850 pts.).

Our 1st (32), 3rd (96), and 4th (128) round picks add up to 750 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of New England's 23rd pick (760 pts.) or Atlanta's 24th pick (740 pts.).

Our 1st (32) and 3rd (96) round picks add up to 706 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of Miami's 25th pick (720 pts.) or Baltimore's 26th pick (700 pts.).

Our 1st (32) and 4th (128) round picks add up to 634 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of the Giants' 29th pick (640 pts.) or Tennessee's 30th pick (620 pts.) .

Our 2nd (64) and 3rd (96) round picks add up to 386 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of Dallas' 51st pick (390 pts.) or the Jets' 52nd pick (380 pts.).

Our 2nd (64) and 4th (128) round picks add up to 314 points, which would get you in the neighborhood of New England's 58th pick (320 pts.) or Carolina's 59th pick (310 pts.).[/quote:u0pwhbxi]

The only player I would trade up for is BJ Raji and I don't think he falls to the 1.20 range which is the only range where we don't have to give up too much.

I think a trade up in Round 2 is a much more realistic possibility.