PDA

View Full Version : Steelers are 1 of 2 teams to attend G Chester Pitts' workout



RuthlessBurgher
07-20-2010, 06:37 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d819365d2/article/freeagent-guard-pitts-draws-colts-steelers-to-workout


Free-agent guard Pitts draws Colts, Steelers to workout
By Jason La Canfora NFL.com
Published: July 20, 2010 at 03:13 p.m.
Updated: July 20, 2010 at 06:04 p.m.

Free-agent guard Chester Pitts worked out for two teams Tuesday in Arizona, according to his agent, Andrew Kessler, who added that his client has visits scheduled with two other clubs next week.

The teams have asked that their identities not be revealed at this time, Kessler said. However, a source with knowledge of the situation revealed the Indianapolis Colts and Pittsburgh Steelers attended Pitts' workout.

The Steelers are looking for offensive line help after starting right tackle Willie Colon suffered a season-ending Achilles' tendon injury last month.

Pitts has drawn interest from several teams throughout the offseason, including the Seattle Seahawks, San Francisco 49ers and Philadelphia Eagles. Pitts is coming back from major surgery, and Tuesday marked the first time he had been able to undergo a full workout for teams.

The eight-year NFL veteran, a longtime starter for the Houston Texans, is one of the few in-demand free agents still available. He started every game for the Texans from his rookie season in 2002 through 2008. Pitts played in just two games last season before undergoing the surgery.

hawaiiansteel
07-20-2010, 08:11 PM
sounds like we're not completely sold on Tony Hills, Jonathan Scott, Ramon Foster and Kraig Urbik.

Oviedo
07-21-2010, 10:04 AM
I think it is just due diligence. Just because a team is always looking doesn't mean they are always buying or looking to buy. A cost of a plane ticket and a hotel room is nothing to go to one of these workouts and get some insights. If Pitts could play OT then I would say that maybe they were looking for a reason, but I think we are deep at interior line positions.

MeetJoeGreene
07-21-2010, 10:12 AM
I think it is just due diligence. Just because a team is always looking doesn't mean they are always buying or looking to buy. A cost of a plane ticket and a hotel room is nothing to go to one of these workouts and get some insights. If Pitts could play OT then I would say that maybe they were looking for a reason, but I think we are deep at interior line positions.


Yeah. I can't figure out why we are looking at a guard unless he could play RT OR there is some kernel of truth to the rumor that Pouncy could be moved out to RT.

SteelerNation1
07-21-2010, 10:23 AM
sounds like we're not completely sold on Tony Hills, Jonathan Scott, Ramon Foster and Kraig Urbik.
From the sound of this article, I am not completely sold on Scott anymore.

Jonathan Scott’s Not Likely the Answer
Posted on July 20, 2010 by JJ
The Steelers are getting ready to begin the season without their two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback, but that may not be the most costly loss the Steelers have suffered this offseason.

Whatever the reason, Steelers’ backup quarterbacks have played pretty well in relief of Ben Roethlisberger. But the Steelers’ offensive line has been pretty poor even at full strength, and when Willie Colon snapped his Achilles’ tendon, they just lost their best offensive linemen.

So who will replace him, there are plenty of candidates, but there seems to be a lot of belief that recent free agent signee Jonathan Scott will get the first shot at the job–ESPN.com’s Len Pasquarelli ($), USA Today and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Gerry Dulac all suggest that Scott is one of or the favorite to start.

Hopefully they are all wrong. It is possible that Scott could start and that he could turn in a passable performance at right tackle, but all the evidence we have says otherwise.

The big reasons that Scott is expected to start are that 1) he started eight games last year and 2) he played for new Steelers’ line coach Sean Kugler at Buffalo.

Here’s two big reasons he isn’t the answer: 1) he was one of the worst starting tackles in the league last year. 2) if Kugler couldn’t fix his footwork problems in Buffalo, why will that change in Pittsburgh?

In fact, the fact that Kugler has worked with Scott in the past is actually a detriment to his signing. If Scott was coming in to work with a new offensive line coach, you could grit your teeth and hope that a new coach could find a way to fix the problems that his old coach in Buffalo couldn’t solve.

It is true that Scott started eight games last year, but that’s more of an indictment of why he shouldn’t start for the Steelers. Buffalo came into the 2009 season with the worst offensive tackle situation in the NFL. They cut supposed starting left tackle Langston Walker the week before the season began, even though it meant the team was left without any experienced tackles and three rookies in its starting front five.

But that didn’t mean Scott was a starter–he was a backup behind Brad Butler. That wasn’t much of a surprise for Scott-he’d started only six games in his first three years in the league, and the Bills still had tackles they liked better than him.

Scott only moved into the starting job when Butler blew out his knee in the second week of the season, one of a seemingly endless run of offensive line injuries for the Bills.

Over the next three games, Scott played every snap until he suffered his own injury–an ankle sprain–against the Browns. At this point Buffalo was signing guys off practice squads one week and putting them in the starting lineup the next, so it’s not a huge accomplishment to say that Scott had earned a starting job.

During the next two and a half games, Scott was as dangerous to Bills quarterbacks as a baby with a meat cleaver.

We’ll go through Scott’s sacks allowed one by one. And I’m going to link to the NFL.com’s video of each and every sack he allowed so that you can see his work for yourself.

Against the Saints in Week Three, Scott gave up one sack to Charles Grant (who was helped by Randall Gay). Admittedly this one was partly center Geoff Hangartner’s fault, as a bad shotgun snap forced Trent Edwards to hold the ball longer than he would have wanted.

Things really fell apart against the Dolphins in Week Four. Fill-in right tackle Kirk Chambers was being terrorized by Cameron Wake on one side, but Scott wasn’t doing much better at the left tackle spot. In the third quarter, Jason Taylor knocked Scott off balance and drove him back into the quarterback for half a sack (Wake was beating Chambers on the other side to share the sack).

In the fourth quarter, Taylor finished off Scott and the Bills with a pair of sacks. For a sack on first and 10, Taylor again drove Scott back into the quarterback with superior leverage for an easy sack. On both of those sacks, Scott’s fears about being beaten to the outside led to him not keeping a proper base with his feet that would allow him to properly absorb the blow of a bull rush.

Just two plays later, Scott made the opposite problem. In his concerns to not get caught leaning to the outside, Scott was too slow off the snap, so Taylor just ran right past him for another sack.

Technically Scott gave up another sack the next week against Cleveland before leaving with his ankle injury, but in this case, it wasn’t entirely his fault. Fred Jackson did a poor job of picking up a blitzing safety, which forced Trent Edwards to step up. That caused Scott to lose his grip on Kenyon Coleman who picked up a garbage sack.

So in roughly three and a half games, Scott gave up three and a half sacks and had a hand in another sack allowed. That was a pace that would have made him the NFL’s worst pass blocking offensive tackle over a full season. Thankfully for him, he missed the next four games with his ankle injury–Adam Snyder’s spot as the league’s worst pass blocking tackle would be safe.

That did give Scott a chance to regroup, and when he returned he played better. Not well, but better. By this point in the season, the Bills were shuffling their line every week to try to fill holes created by injury after injury. Kendall Simmons, the former Steeler, was plucked off the waiver wire to start at guard–he quickly showed that he wasn’t the answer with 2.5 sacks allowed against the Dolphins. Scott was having his own trouble in a second matchup with Miami. The two linemen shared Scott’s first sack allowed against Miami, as he unwisely lunged forward at the snap, only to see Randy Stark sidestep his punch block and step around him for a clear run at the quarterback.

Scott’s trouble at staying low and maintain a solid base showed up again on a Joey Porter sack in the fourth quarter. Porter got his hands on Scott’s chest and actually lifted the 315+ pound Scott off the ground. Porter than shed Scott to pick up the sack.

The final of the 4.5 sacks Scott allowed against the Dolphins came later in the fourth quarter. In this case Scott didn’t do an awful job. He did a good job of staying with Porter on a speed rush, but when Simmons lost his man and Ryan Fitzpatrick stepped up, Porter could see it and Scott couldn’t, so Porter reversed direction to jump Fitzpatrick from behind while Scott kept on going.

Scott did make it through the next week’s game against the Jets sackless. But Chiefs defensive end Tamba Hali ruined that one-game sackless streak with an easy sack the next week. This may be Scott’s worst sack allowed of the season. He listlessly took his drop on a pass play, then watched Hali cut to his inside for an easy sack–Scott barely got a hand on him.

Scott’s sack allowed streak continued against the Patriots in Week 15. Tully Banta-Cain had already beaten running back Fred Jackson for a pair of sacks before he simply steamrolled Scott for an easy sack. Scott’s troubles again revolved around his feet. He struggles to maintain a base with his butt “dropped” to handle bull rushers. Even when they (like Banta-Cain and Porter) are significantly smaller than him, Scott’s difficulties at maintaining leverage mean that the smaller outside linebackers can actually knock him off his feet. In Banta-Cain’s case, he didn’t actually lift Scott off the ground, but he did knock him backwards for the easy sack.

Thankfully for Bills’ quarterbacks and the length of this post, Scott had to leave the Falcons game in Week 16 after only one series and missed the rest of the season.

So what do we have? Scott played the majority of nine games. During those nine games, he gave up 7.5 sacks that he could be blamed for, plus another sack that was really the fault of a teammate. If you’re wanting to be optimistic, only 1.5 of those sacks (plus the one sack that wasn’t really his fault) came when Scott was playing right tackle. His biggest problems came in his 6+ games at left tackle. But wherever he played, Scott struggled to stay balanced enough to handle bull rushes from smaller outside linebackers and he sometimes could be caught lunging against bigger defensive ends.

It’s worth noting that despite all of their problems along the offensive line (and the lack of significant help with their 2010 draft), the Bills didn’t make a push to keep Scott–they could have likely kept him by simply offering the lowest level restricted free agent tender. And in a league where any tackle with talent becomes very rich, the Steelers were able to pick up Scott for a simple one-year bargain veteran minimum. The rest of the league didn’t see a whole lot of potential in Scott, and an injury to Willie Colon doesn’t change that fact.

If you expect Scott to serve as a decent Barrett Brooks type–someone who participates in practice and provides some versatility–he could probably fill that role, but for him to start every week, the Steelers will likely be quickly looking for a replacement.
http://www.steelerslounge.com/2010/07/jonathan-scotts-not-likely-the-answer/

StarSpangledSteeler
07-21-2010, 03:04 PM
I actually am in favor of signing Pitts especially if it means getting rid of Hartwig. Yes I understand Pitts played guard and Hartwig center, but Hartwig is so bad at center i would rather see them start Pouncey and have Legursky or Urbik back him up. Hartwig is not only a liability, he is impeding the development of our other OL. The whole: Essex, Foster, Hills, Scott issue is very simple. Find out who can start at tackle and who can't. Then get rid of the waste. We need four guys who can play tackle. Three guys who can play guard. And two centers. This whole lineman versatility thing is fine for your back ups, but we need to start making some hard and fast decisions when it comes to who's starting at which positions on our OL, and let them stick there. What happens in the rare event Kemoeatu gets hurt? As of right now, we have don't have legitimate starting depth at guard.

Tackle: Starks, Essex, Foster, then either Hills or Scott

Guard: Kemoeatu, Pitts, Urbik

Center: Pouncey, Legursky

Shoe
07-22-2010, 02:06 PM
I think it is just due diligence. Just because a team is always looking doesn't mean they are always buying or looking to buy. A cost of a plane ticket and a hotel room is nothing to go to one of these workouts and get some insights. If Pitts could play OT then I would say that maybe they were looking for a reason, but I think we are deep at interior line positions.


Yeah. I can't figure out why we are looking at a guard unless he could play RT OR there is some kernel of truth to the rumor that Pouncy could be moved out to RT.

I for one, would love to see the coaches try that. It would show that they think Pouncey has that much ability (a good thing), and it would show that they are about getting the best players out there (also a good thing). The only bad thing is that it would possibly be a sign of how bad the other options are.

pfelix73
07-23-2010, 09:58 AM
I actually am in favor of signing Pitts especially if it means getting rid of Hartwig. Yes I understand Pitts played guard and Hartwig center, but Hartwig is so bad at center i would rather see them start Pouncey and have Legursky or Urbik back him up. Hartwig is not only a liability, he is impeding the development of our other OL. The whole: Essex, Foster, Hills, Scott issue is very simple. Find out who can start at tackle and who can't. Then get rid of the waste. We need four guys who can play tackle. Three guys who can play guard. And two centers. This whole lineman versatility thing is fine for your back ups, but we need to start making some hard and fast decisions when it comes to who's starting at which positions on our OL, and let them stick there. What happens in the rare event Kemoeatu gets hurt? As of right now, we have don't have legitimate starting depth at guard.

Tackle: Starks, Essex, Foster, then either Hills or Scott

Guard: Kemoeatu, Pitts, Urbik

Center: Pouncey, Legursky




I disagree. You gotta try and keep cohesion along the OL as best as possible. I'd rather keep Hartwig in there at C for 1 more year. Slide Essex down to RT and plug in either Pouncey or Foster at RG. Whoever wins it in camp. Not much change in that then.

RuthlessBurgher
07-23-2010, 10:14 AM
I actually am in favor of signing Pitts especially if it means getting rid of Hartwig. Yes I understand Pitts played guard and Hartwig center, but Hartwig is so bad at center i would rather see them start Pouncey and have Legursky or Urbik back him up. Hartwig is not only a liability, he is impeding the development of our other OL. The whole: Essex, Foster, Hills, Scott issue is very simple. Find out who can start at tackle and who can't. Then get rid of the waste. We need four guys who can play tackle. Three guys who can play guard. And two centers. This whole lineman versatility thing is fine for your back ups, but we need to start making some hard and fast decisions when it comes to who's starting at which positions on our OL, and let them stick there. What happens in the rare event Kemoeatu gets hurt? As of right now, we have don't have legitimate starting depth at guard.

Tackle: Starks, Essex, Foster, then either Hills or Scott

Guard: Kemoeatu, Pitts, Urbik

Center: Pouncey, Legursky




I disagree. You gotta try and keep cohesion along the OL as best as possible. I'd rather keep Hartwig in there at C for 1 more year. Slide Essex down to RT and plug in either Pouncey or Foster at RG. Whoever wins it in camp. Not much change in that then.

Ever since Flozell left town without a contract, I fully expected Starks-Kemoeatu-Hartwig-Pouncey-Essex to be our starting o-line. I figure that Foster will be the swing guard-tackle on gameday and Legursky will be the swing center-guard (unless Urbik improves significantly from year 1 to year 2, and shows that he can handle center as well as guard in camp). Adrian Jones, Jonathan Scott, and Tony Hills will also be battling for a roster spot.

Shawn
07-23-2010, 11:42 AM
I think it's really tough to gauge an OLman when the whole line is bad. Scott could have been a victim of being a decent OLman in a terrible line without chemistry or talent. If Kugler is bringing him in I think that says something about his ability.

pfelix73
07-23-2010, 01:29 PM
How do we know that Kugler is the real deal at OL coach though. He could be just another mediocre OL coach. The jury is out to lunch on this one until the season is underway.

Scott will compete at tackle, but Essex has the advantage as being the one with playing experience in this offense and OL.

:tt1

Shawn
07-23-2010, 03:25 PM
How do we know that Kugler is the real deal at OL coach though. He could be just another mediocre OL coach. The jury is out to lunch on this one until the season is underway.

Scott will compete at tackle, but Essex has the advantage as being the one with playing experience in this offense and OL.

:tt1

We don't but the Steelers have a pretty good track record with their hires.