PDA

View Full Version : Should have traded all our picks.



aggiebones
05-02-2011, 11:00 AM
We should have only had a few picks this year. The reason is that most will be lost when they get to the Steelers this year. Since we are in Super Bowl mode, we won't be keeping alot of projects and most draftees this year will fall into that category. So veterans we might consider dumping will be more valuable this season. So we should have loaded up on picks next year and just keep more veterans this year.
I mean there is some potential with alot of these players, but they will rot on the bench or make costly mistakes this season if forced to play.

Even if we would have traded a late 4th for a 5th, we would have been better off next year. Or even dumping those late round flier picks to move up. We could have maybe had a couple 2nd or 3rd rounders instead of 8 draftees most of which will need to be cut.

Anyway that's my thinking. It just seems like a wasted year for most draftees, even the top ones. Those first minicamps and such are so valuable for rookies that many won't ever catch up and will end up on the trash heap or Cleveland.

chiken
05-02-2011, 11:07 AM
If im not mistaken - I believe we drafted all 4 year players this year.. I wonder if this logic had something to do with that.

Eddie Spaghetti
05-02-2011, 11:16 AM
posts like these make me really glad none of you work in the FO.

the draft is about the future. always has been.

RuthlessBurgher
05-02-2011, 12:37 PM
You'll have guys like Anthony Madison, Arnaz Battle, Tony Hills, Keyaron Fox, Will Allen, William Gay, and Mewelde Moore who may not be brought back, and we'll plug in rookies to fill those roster spots. Are we less of a Super Bowl team next year by dropping some dead weight like that in exchange for hungry, young players?

D Rock
05-02-2011, 01:02 PM
You'll have guys like Anthony Madison, Arnaz Battle, Tony Hills, Keyaron Fox, Will Allen, William Gay, and Mewelde Moore who may not be brought back, and we'll plug in rookies to fill those roster spots. Are we less of a Super Bowl team next year by dropping some dead weight like that in exchange for hungry, young players?


hungry, young, and CHEAPER players!

the Steelers absolutely have to drop players like El and Battle and Fox and pick up the young guys, because that is the only way to sign the truly special players on the team to the contracts they will want to keep them here.

Lose the rookies, aka..cheap role players, and you lose Woodley. You lose Ike. You lose Timmons. You lose Wallace. You lose Mendenhall.

Etc, etc, etc.

aggiebones
05-02-2011, 03:45 PM
Some of this makes sense. Some I'm not so sure.
You drop all that 'dead weight' and you will see a significant drop in ST play at least. You rely on too many rookie backups on D that have had little exposure to what we do and we give up ALOT more points. These kids will be horribly lost early on. Some are marginal players at best, which is normal in any draft as it progresses.

Cheap is the best answer. Hungry is not. They will be doe-eyed come game day cause they will be lost.

I dare say that this will be our least effective draft outside of forcing Gilbert and Heywood onto the roster. Heywood should be fine over time as he will be given time. Gilbert will be given time and hopefully he can make up some ground and be productive. I was lukewarm on him to begin with though as stated, I am not a GM. Though to be far, GMs make mistakes too. The rest won't touch the field and I bet half (or more) are cut from the opening day roster. Which goes back to my original idea of dropping these picks to next years draft. There would have been suitors. We wouldn't lose the picks, they would be bumped a year. Then packaged together we could have moved up.

Many gurus have said this was the league's worst draft in 10 years. Next year's may be top since alot of kids stayed an extra year. Wouldn't it be nice to be loaded to bear for next year's draft. We could move up aggressively in a good draft. Ah well, it isn't to be.

feltdizz
05-02-2011, 03:53 PM
Traded all our picks? That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard...

RuthlessBurgher
05-02-2011, 04:10 PM
Traded all our picks? That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard...

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/359/041/74922125_display_image.jpg?1282679935

aggiebones
05-02-2011, 04:21 PM
Not including the top 2 picks as I've stated. Let's see how the rest fare. We could have taken 2 other rooks, but 8 is a waste in this draft with no teaching time. So maybe we take 4 rookies from this draft. Bump 4 picks to next year.

This is a weak draft, next is tight.

Next year if we could have a 1st, 2nd, two 3rds, two 4ths, two 6ths and two 7ths, we would be FAAAR better off. We could move more freely up in the draft.

We can revisit this option on cut day this year and next.

D Rock
05-02-2011, 05:13 PM
Not including the top 2 picks as I've stated. Let's see how the rest fare. We could have taken 2 other rooks, but 8 is a waste in this draft with no teaching time. So maybe we take 4 rookies from this draft. Bump 4 picks to next year.

This is a weak draft, next is tight.

Next year if we could have a 1st, 2nd, two 3rds, two 4ths, two 6ths and two 7ths, we would be FAAAR better off. We could move more freely up in the draft.

We can revisit this option on cut day this year and next.

Check the thread I just posted. I'll put my money down that all 7 guys make the team, unless beat out by an UDFA or an unseen FA signing.

BradshawsHairdresser
05-02-2011, 06:05 PM
You'll have guys like Anthony Madison, Arnaz Battle, Tony Hills, Keyaron Fox, Will Allen, William Gay, and Mewelde Moore who may not be brought back, and we'll plug in rookies to fill those roster spots. Are we less of a Super Bowl team next year by dropping some dead weight like that in exchange for hungry, young players?

We may well replace the above-mentioned veterans with rookies, but I wouldn't call those vets "dead weight" (well, except for Tony Hills). Other than Hills, they all contributed--some only on ST's, but hey, ST's are 1/3 of the game.

Discipline of Steel
05-02-2011, 06:12 PM
You'll have guys like Anthony Madison, Arnaz Battle, Tony Hills, Keyaron Fox, Will Allen, William Gay, and Mewelde Moore who may not be brought back, and we'll plug in rookies to fill those roster spots. Are we less of a Super Bowl team next year by dropping some dead weight like that in exchange for hungry, young players?

We may well replace the above-mentioned veterans with rookies, but I wouldn't call those vets "dead weight" (well, except for Tony Hills). Other than Hills, they all contributed--some only on ST's, but hey, ST's are 1/3 of the game.

I was kind of thinking the same thing, just to a lesser extent. Moore is still a good player, Gay can play his nickel role pretty well, esp blitzing. Fox made a huge gaffe in the SB but still a good tough player for 2 years before that. The others I can live without more easily.

tiproast
05-02-2011, 09:23 PM
We should have only had a few picks this year. The reason is that most will be lost when they get to the Steelers this year. Since we are in Super Bowl mode, we won't be keeping alot of projects and most draftees this year will fall into that category. So veterans we might consider dumping will be more valuable this season. So we should have loaded up on picks next year and just keep more veterans this year.
I mean there is some potential with alot of these players, but they will rot on the bench or make costly mistakes this season if forced to play.

Even if we would have traded a late 4th for a 5th, we would have been better off next year. Or even dumping those late round flier picks to move up. We could have maybe had a couple 2nd or 3rd rounders instead of 8 draftees most of which will need to be cut.

Anyway that's my thinking. It just seems like a wasted year for most draftees, even the top ones. Those first minicamps and such are so valuable for rookies that many won't ever catch up and will end up on the trash heap or Cleveland.
Mike Webster was a 5th round draft pick.

Terrell Davis and Tom Brady were 6th round picks.

Although you're correct that the odds for making the team get slimmer the later in the draft a player was chosen, there's are always those players whose best days occur after college is over. Conversely, there are some players that peak in college, and whose pro careers are a disappointment. And sometimes players that are drafted late use the perception that they're not as good as the players drafted above them as a spur that helps them maintain their focus to get better and outdo those other, higher drafted players.

The challenge for the scouts and personnel departments is to figure out which is which. Sometimes being drafted early and getting a big contract is the worst thing that can happen to a player.

NJ-STEELER
05-02-2011, 11:37 PM
i'm concerned about butler's comments on this.

he mentioned thaddeus gibson last year being behind cause of a late graduation date. if the lockout looms it will be even harder for the rookies to get a grasp on this defense.
it took ziggy a year/middle of year 2 to get everything down and start making an impact with the defense.

is it possible that we wont see a contribution from a 1st round pick like heyward into his 3rd season?

Chadman
05-03-2011, 01:24 AM
i'm concerned about butler's comments on this.

he mentioned thaddeus gibson last year being behind cause of a late graduation date. if the lockout looms it will be even harder for the rookies to get a grasp on this defense.
it took ziggy a year/middle of year 2 to get everything down and start making an impact with the defense.

is it possible that we wont see a contribution from a 1st round pick like heyward into his 3rd season?

Quite possible- if you expect him to be a starter. Chances are his addition will remove Nick Eason from the roster- at best Heyward is the 4th DE this season- and that's not a bad thing when the 3 in front are Keisel, Smith & Hood. But at best, this is Smith's last year- so Heyward's 1 year of experience will stand him in good stead as he becomes the #1 back-up DE next season. And then it's likely Keisel will be done or close to done- by which time Heyward should move into a starting role. He's 21 now, so he should be a starter by 23 years of age. That gives him, what? 10 years of starting ahead of him, given Keisel/Smith as the example to follow?

aggiebones
05-03-2011, 09:57 AM
Some of you are missing MY point. I'm just saying that these 3rd to 7th rounders are going to miss VERY important time due to lockout. They will NOT have any kind of a grasp about the NFL. They will be 100% dead weight for at least a year, maybe 2. They will get no training and then sit on the bench ALL year.
The point about Webster, et all makes no sense. I NEVER NEVER NEVER said I don't appreciate the value of lower round picks. NEEEVVVEERR. And most years, they are VERY important to our team. But with this year being a weak draft and then no training camp possibly. Yikes.

I'm just implying that they will not get the field exposure THIS year due to the lockout. And had we pushed a few of these picks to next year, we might be better off keeping a few extra veterans this year.

The point about veteran money is valid. I have seen no other valid points to counter mine. If they make the team it will be out of sheer cap numbers and it will HURT our team to let go of some of the 'mediocre' veterans we have. We should have drafted 4 kids and pushed the rest to the deep draft next year.

feltdizz
05-03-2011, 11:40 AM
Some of you are missing MY point. I'm just saying that these 3rd to 7th rounders are going to miss VERY important time due to lockout. They will NOT have any kind of a grasp about the NFL. They will be 100% dead weight for at least a year, maybe 2. They will get no training and then sit on the bench ALL year.
The point about Webster, et all makes no sense. I NEVER NEVER NEVER said I don't appreciate the value of lower round picks. NEEEVVVEERR. And most years, they are VERY important to our team. But with this year being a weak draft and then no training camp possibly. Yikes.

I'm just implying that they will not get the field exposure THIS year due to the lockout. And had we pushed a few of these picks to next year, we might be better off keeping a few extra veterans this year.

The point about veteran money is valid. I have seen no other valid points to counter mine. If they make the team it will be out of sheer cap numbers and it will HURT our team to let go of some of the 'mediocre' veterans we have. We should have drafted 4 kids and pushed the rest to the deep draft next year.

Why wouldn't all the teams use this logic given the lockout situation? What if our 6th or 7th so something special and we nurture that talent for the future?

You haven't seen any valid points to counter your opinion on how this year will pan out? Sounds like you rigged the game with your solid analysis of the future. How about holding onto this opinion and bumping it back up after the roster is selected... at least then you will have some facts to back up your awesome points.

6 lottery numbers please? :wink:

Oviedo
05-03-2011, 11:45 AM
i'm concerned about butler's comments on this.

he mentioned thaddeus gibson last year being behind cause of a late graduation date. if the lockout looms it will be even harder for the rookies to get a grasp on this defense.
it took ziggy a year/middle of year 2 to get everything down and start making an impact with the defense.

is it possible that we wont see a contribution from a 1st round pick like heyward into his 3rd season?

Wild idea---simplify the defense so young players can contribute sooner and become better players sooner!!!!!!

Dom Capers didn't seem to have a problem doing that with young players in Green Bay. Maybe we are just outsmarting ourselves.

tiproast
05-03-2011, 02:34 PM
Some of you are missing MY point.


This is what you posted in your first paragraph:


We should have only had a few picks this year. The reason is that most will be lost when they get to the Steelers this year. Since we are in Super Bowl mode, we won't be keeping alot of projects and most draftees this year will fall into that category. So veterans we might consider dumping will be more valuable this season. So we should have loaded up on picks next year and just keep more veterans this year.

Your main point (because it was your opening paragraph) is that the team should only pick a few players because they (The Steelers) are in Super Bowl mode. Only in your last paragraph did you mention the lockout and reduced opportunities for training camp.

ikestops85
05-03-2011, 03:39 PM
i'm concerned about butler's comments on this.

he mentioned thaddeus gibson last year being behind cause of a late graduation date. if the lockout looms it will be even harder for the rookies to get a grasp on this defense.
it took ziggy a year/middle of year 2 to get everything down and start making an impact with the defense.

is it possible that we wont see a contribution from a 1st round pick like heyward into his 3rd season?

Wild idea---simplify the defense so young players can contribute sooner and become better players sooner!!!!!!

Dom Capers didn't seem to have a problem doing that with young players in Green Bay. Maybe we are just outsmarting ourselves.

...sigh ... I forgot we are going to have to listen to this for another off season. :Binky

aggiebones
05-03-2011, 10:39 PM
"Anyway that's my thinking. It just seems like a wasted year for most draftees, even the top ones. Those first minicamps and such are so valuable for rookies that many won't ever catch up and will end up on the trash heap or Cleveland."

Tip, you are correct that I didn't plainly mention the lockout, just danced around it like in the third paragraph. I used the term THIS as in this year due to lockout, but that was vague on my part. I assume you could all see inside my head. Sadly, if you could see in my head, you would all kill yourselves. :)

But alas, it was my main point of being the lockout year draft and also being a weak draft since many kids hid in school another year. This is one of the weakest top end of the draft in awhile. WRs, CBs, RBs, not much to speak of. Heck, it was hard to get a consensus on who the real QB talents were.

We'll see how this ends. And while I agree a few of these guys will make the roster since we are in need of cap space, that doesn't mean they will contribute. And they will in short order be replaced by near future draftees.
We'll see how this turns out, but it will be REAL hard to get a feel for this draft class without minicamps, training camps and who knows how much preseason we'll have.
Alas, we can revisit it in time.
If Gilbert and the texas kid end up major players on SB teams, I'll gladly eat crow.

Eddie Spaghetti
05-03-2011, 11:05 PM
We'll see how this ends. And while I agree a few of these guys will make the roster since we are in need of cap space, that doesn't mean they will contribute. And they will in short order be replaced by near future draftees.

this statement makes zero sense.

are you saying these rookies will make the team to save cap space(dumb) and then be replaced by lower drafted rookies next year???

you are all over the place in this thread.

tiproast
05-04-2011, 07:10 AM
"
Tip, you are correct that I didn't plainly mention the lockout, just danced around it like in the third paragraph. I used the term THIS as in this year due to lockout, but that was vague on my part. I assume you could all see inside my head. Sadly, if you could see in my head, you would all kill yourselves. :)
No worries - and after you explained it, I thought about it and realized you had a solid argument. There's a good chance that many late round picks that might have made rosters in previous years won't have that opportunity because the coaching staff won't be able to spend as much time with them as they normally would.

D Rock
05-04-2011, 08:14 AM
We'll see how this ends. And while I agree a few of these guys will make the roster since we are in need of cap space, that doesn't mean they will contribute. And they will in short order be replaced by near future draftees.

this statement makes zero sense.

are you saying these rookies will make the team to save cap space(dumb) and then be replaced by lower drafted rookies next year???

you are all over the place in this thread.

Unless the lockout takes up the whole season, incoming rookies wont be anywhere near as ready to contribute to the teams as this years crop will, whether they get on the field or not.

aggiebones
08-01-2011, 12:01 PM
Well, my original thought may be coming into play. Seems the Steelers are loading down the roster with veterans from past camps as they know the system and time is short...much like I suspected.
With little time to go through camps, even veterans changing teams will have a hard time.
With us sticking to a mostly veteran team right out of the Super Bowl, we should have an advantage at least in the early games.
We should CRUSH Seattle in game2. Baltimore hasn't gone through many changes either, so that will be a dogfight.

That all said, how many of the draft picks are wasting time with us before being cut. Not much time to learn and not many places to store them for the season. I still think we should have tried to trade more draft picks into the next draft. We will have alot more change over going into next camp with many older veterans probably retiring. We could have either amassed pics next year to use to trade up or just used multiple picks last year to trade up a round or 2 next year. It was possible and I rarely complain about our personnel department as I think VERY highly of them, but they knew how this lockout was going to go (almost to the last second grandstanding, ala debt ceiling in congress) and that veterans would rule the day.
I would have loved to have been able to sneak up to get an extra 2nd or 3rd at least next season.

RuthlessBurgher
08-01-2011, 12:12 PM
Well, my original thought may be coming into play. Seems the Steelers are loading down the roster with veterans from past camps as they know the system and time is short...much like I suspected.
With little time to go through camps, even veterans changing teams will have a hard time.
With us sticking to a mostly veteran team right out of the Super Bowl, we should have an advantage at least in the early games.
We should CRUSH Seattle in game2. Baltimore hasn't gone through many changes either, so that will be a dogfight.

That all said, how many of the draft picks are wasting time with us before being cut. Not much time to learn and not many places to store them for the season. I still think we should have tried to trade more draft picks into the next draft. We will have alot more change over going into next camp with many older veterans probably retiring. We could have either amassed pics next year to use to trade up or just used multiple picks last year to trade up a round or 2 next year. It was possible and I rarely complain about our personnel department as I think VERY highly of them, but they knew how this lockout was going to go (almost to the last second grandstanding, ala debt ceiling in congress) and that veterans would rule the day.
I would have loved to have been able to sneak up to get an extra 2nd or 3rd at least next season.

We are still not in compliance with the salary cap (I believe we have until Thursday to get the books in order), so there still may be more terminations to come if the proposed renegotiations/restructures/extensions do not go as planned. If we have to dump more overpriced vets to get under the cap, then we'll need cheap rookies to take their place on the roster.

aggiebones
08-01-2011, 01:36 PM
Good point, but I think the veterans realize that they need to take the pay cut to get under the cap or they may be cut outright. And not many other teams are running around picking up leftovers. Well, maybe the Skins, Cards and Browns.
They could be stuck in no man's land.

Captain Lemming
08-01-2011, 09:07 PM
Some of this makes sense. Some I'm not so sure.
You drop all that 'dead weight' and you will see a significant drop in ST play at least.

Our best ST players last season were the two "rookie" LBers, not special teams veterans like Madison and Fox.

chiken
08-01-2011, 11:32 PM
its very rare that rookies can start in our defense so if you trade most of your picks this year, and then try and pick up a bunch of guys in the next draft, you will screw yourself not out of just 1 but 2 years.

We have aging players.. We cant afford to throw a year away, ever.

its best to draft these so called "Weak" players and let them get some Practice experience under the belt. so that in year 3 they are ready to contribute.. thats our cycle. We dont need the whole Class to produce, just 2 or 3 of them.

StarSpangledSteeler
08-02-2011, 06:11 AM
Let me put a different spin on this...

What if we traded our 1.31 + 2.31 + 3.31 + 4.31 for the 1.14 and picked up Pouncey II? Could he start at LG this year? Probably yes. Could we cut Kemo and use that money to sign a veteran CB to take over the nickel spot instead of drafting Brown (thus saving both Brown's and Gay's salaries)? Probably yes. Would both of those acquisitions see the field this year and be an upgrade over our current roster? Probably yes. What do we really lose? Our "non bustable future star" OT in Gilbert? Assuming we just re-signed Colon. That lines us up as:

Scott (or FA) - Pouncey - Pouncey - RG - Colon

The only thing we really lose is Heyward at DE, which is significant going forward, but certainly not this year with: Hood-Smith-Keisel rotating.

I think the bigger point here is that (outside of Heyward) we drafted a bunch of solid journeymen/role players/back ups. Maybe we get a couple of gems. But maybe not. If we draft Pouncey and pick up a veteran CB, we know what we're getting, and we're getting contributions now.

chiken
08-02-2011, 06:48 AM
Thats putting a ton of pressure on those 1st 2 picks. No More Bustamalo - That means that Sweed's and the Troy Edwards like picks would set us back the Bengals (who are essentially a crap shooping team with it comes to the draft.) No More Ike Taylors and Kiesels..

This also means you are praying you suck every dang on year so you can have your run of the mill in the draft.. Thats what suck teams do. If you're successful then you can compete at a high/championship level with these so called "Journeymen" players.

Think about how many of these guys we have had on our roster throughout the years.

aggiebones
08-02-2011, 11:34 AM
Let me put another spin on this.

I think our 3-7th round picks will have a rough go since we have a shortened camp (similar to a holdout), this tends to hamper rookies not only in their draft year, but in the future.

We could have pushed the picks back a year and with some fancy trades, could have combined a few of them and moved up a few slots next year. Next years crop will have a full camp to get acclimated to the game a bit.
I'm not advocating we do this every year, but it made sense to do it this year. Not maybe ALL our picks like my crazy subject line indicates. But a few, maybe even 3-4 of them.

I think we are going veteran laden group due to lack of camp time, so some of these rookies will rot for a year and then vanish.
We'll see. But outside of the top 2 picks this year, few others will get ample PT to learn the ropes.