PDA

View Full Version : Steelers | Not expected to tender offer to Stapleton



hawaiiansteel
03-01-2010, 06:53 PM
i'm somewhat surprised by this move, guess the Steelers don't see a future in Stapleton.


Steelers | Not expected to tender offer to Stapleton

Mon, 01 Mar 2010

Adam Caplan, of Scout.com, reports the Pittsburgh Steelers are not expected to tender an offer to restricted free-agent OG/C Darnell Stapleton.

D Rock
03-01-2010, 07:18 PM
If he doesn't have a future as a starter or a top backup then theres no need to keep him around.

Kemo, Essex, Foster, Hartwig, Legursky


Yep...No need for Stapleton. Gotta keep a spot open for a rookie.

phillyesq
03-01-2010, 07:21 PM
If he doesn't have a future as a starter or a top backup then theres no need to keep him around.

Kemo, Essex, Foster, Hartwig, Legursky


Yep...No need for Stapleton. Gotta keep a spot open for a rookie.

I'm also a bit surprised by the move to non-tender Stapelton. He didn't show great strength, but he did demonstrate pretty good mobility. I would think that more competition for the backup spots would be better. If he gets cut in camp, so be it.

Oviedo
03-01-2010, 09:11 PM
Reading between the lines, maybe Foster and Urbik have passed Stapleton and the team knows he won't be able to beat out either of them.

Steel Life
03-01-2010, 09:52 PM
Perhaps the knee injury is worse than any thought or his dedication to the recovery training is wanting. Either way, chalk up a rookie being drafted now.

Chadman
03-01-2010, 09:55 PM
Interesting....Chadman had assumed Stapleton would move into the back-up Center role. Legursky gets a chance perhaps?

Does this mean interior OL is on the agenda?

steelblood
03-02-2010, 09:12 AM
Reading between the lines, maybe Foster and Urbik have passed Stapleton and the team knows he won't be able to beat out either of them.

I think it is more likely that he isn't recovering from his injury very well.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
03-02-2010, 09:17 AM
Legursky? Draft choice? Urbik rumors true? They are heavy in the interior.

MaxAMillion
03-02-2010, 10:29 AM
This tells me that the Steelers must be banking on drafting a center in this draft. I don't believe they are banking solely on Legursky being the starter in 2011. Hopefully that means my man Pouncey is coming.

fezziwig
03-02-2010, 11:43 AM
When they say they don't plan on making him an offer, does that mean for sure he won't be a Steeler ? What if no other team shows him attention, do the Steelers keep him at a bargain basement price ?

Oviedo
03-02-2010, 11:46 AM
This tells me that the Steelers must be banking on drafting a center in this draft. I don't believe they are banking solely on Legursky being the starter in 2011. Hopefully that means my man Pouncey is coming.

You will be very disappointed with Pouncey. There is a reason he refused to lift at the combine. he is weak in comparison to the other Centers and will get eaten alive in the AFC North.

phillyesq
03-02-2010, 12:49 PM
According to a few of the reports I read, Stapelton is expected to generate interest as a FA. If the Steelers could get a 7th for Sean Mahan, I'd like to think that Stapelton would be able to bring back a late round draft choice. After all, he is young, and he started for a SB winner. That should count for something, IMO.

Mister Pittsburgh
03-02-2010, 01:11 PM
According to a few of the reports I read, Stapelton is expected to generate interest as a FA. If the Steelers could get a 7th for Sean Mahan, I'd like to think that Stapelton would be able to bring back a late round draft choice. After all, he is young, and he started for a SB winner. That should count for something, IMO.

We didn't trade Joey Porter. He could of landed us a very high draft pick.

birtikidis
03-02-2010, 04:02 PM
This tells me that the Steelers must be banking on drafting a center in this draft. I don't believe they are banking solely on Legursky being the starter in 2011. Hopefully that means my man Pouncey is coming.

You will be very disappointed with Pouncey. There is a reason he refused to lift at the combine. he is weak in comparison to the other Centers and will get eaten alive in the AFC North.
Ummm have you ever lifted with pouncey?

stlrz d
03-02-2010, 10:24 PM
According to a few of the reports I read, Stapelton is expected to generate interest as a FA. If the Steelers could get a 7th for Sean Mahan, I'd like to think that Stapelton would be able to bring back a late round draft choice. After all, he is young, and he started for a SB winner. That should count for something, IMO.

We didn't trade Joey Porter. He could of landed us a very high draft pick.

Not necessarily. You can't trade without a partner. If no one was willing to take on his salary then forget about it.

This part isn't just directed at you because there are a few others here who do this too, and it drives me nucking futs: it's either "could have" or "could've" but never, ever, ever "could of".

Sorry...I just can't take that anymore...it makes me crazy to read "could of".

click me! (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html)

RuthlessBurgher
03-03-2010, 02:37 AM
[quote=phillyesq]According to a few of the reports I read, Stapelton is expected to generate interest as a FA. If the Steelers could get a 7th for Sean Mahan, I'd like to think that Stapelton would be able to bring back a late round draft choice. After all, he is young, and he started for a SB winner. That should count for something, IMO.

We didn't trade Joey Porter. He could of landed us a very high draft pick.

Not necessarily. You can't trade without a partner. If no one was willing to take on his salary then forget about it.

This part isn't just directed at you because there are a few others here who do this too, and it drives me nucking futs: it's either "could have" or "could've" but never, ever, ever "could of".

Sorry...I just can't take that anymore...it makes me crazy to read "could of".

click me! (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html)[/quote:pzahrkb1]

The one that kills me that I see constantly is people spelling "lose" as "loose" (for example, "The Bengals are loosing by seven points").

I teach a graduate level Advanced Education Psychology course, and I have established teachers who working toward a Master's degree who make that error in their papers all the time.

The one on this board that gets me is the lack of "to be" in many sentences (for example, "Bruce Arians needs fired" rather than "Bruce Arians needs to be fired"). I don't think this one could be explained away by someone being more accustomed to spoken English rather than written English, since I have never heard anyone talk this way (then again, perhaps it is a regional quirk like "Yinz" that I am unaware of at the present time).

stlrz d
03-03-2010, 08:20 AM
[quote=phillyesq]According to a few of the reports I read, Stapelton is expected to generate interest as a FA. If the Steelers could get a 7th for Sean Mahan, I'd like to think that Stapelton would be able to bring back a late round draft choice. After all, he is young, and he started for a SB winner. That should count for something, IMO.

We didn't trade Joey Porter. He could of landed us a very high draft pick.

Not necessarily. You can't trade without a partner. If no one was willing to take on his salary then forget about it.

This part isn't just directed at you because there are a few others here who do this too, and it drives me nucking futs: it's either "could have" or "could've" but never, ever, ever "could of".

Sorry...I just can't take that anymore...it makes me crazy to read "could of".

click me! (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html)

The one that kills me that I see constantly is people spelling "lose" as "loose" (for example, "The Bengals are loosing by seven points").

I teach a graduate level Advanced Education Psychology course, and I have established teachers who working toward a Master's degree who make that error in their papers all the time.

The one on this board that gets me is the lack of "to be" in many sentences (for example, "Bruce Arians needs fired" rather than "Bruce Arians needs to be fired"). I don't think this one could be explained away by someone being more accustomed to spoken English rather than written English, since I have never heard anyone talk this way (then again, perhaps it is a regional quirk like "Yinz" that I am unaware of at the present time).[/quote:2wtucfuq]

Heh...both of those get me too. And there's also the whole "your" and "you're" thing.

It's simple...if one is saying "you are" then it's "you're". If not then it's "your". For example, "Your friends think you're stupid because of your poor grammar". :lol:

fezziwig
03-03-2010, 12:18 PM
It surprises me that this is taking place. I don't know if it is a surprise but it makes me think back to Simmons the guard prior to Stapelton.

Many of us couldn't wait for Simmons to be replaced and were happy that Stapelton seemed to foot the bill at that position. I too at first was happy with Stapelton but as time went on, I realized he wasn't much better or better. What had taken the Steelers for ever to figure out that Simmons wasn't their future but quickly learned Stapelton isn't either. Didn't we replace Stapelton wit Essexs a player that has been on the team ?
Did it take him that long to develope or can't they tell who's good or not ?
Maybe they plan on bringing someone in or they feel Essexs can make the grade or they think we have a younger guy ready to be the starter.
Just surprises me that we stuck it out with Simmons for so long, had Stapelton, he is now expendable.