Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 108

Thread: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

  1. #21
    Hall of Famer Mister Pittsburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,678

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by BURGH86STEEL
    Quote Originally Posted by feltdizz
    Quote Originally Posted by stlrz d

    There are 4 safties on the roster.

    Troy, Clark, Carter, Mundy.

    Who should have played instead of Carter?
    Mundy.

    I think the point some are trying to make is Carter shouldn't have been on the team to begin with. I just can't fathom Carter being the best of the rest as our #2 going into last season.

    I would have released Carter after the freaking Jacksonville playoff game.
    Carter had some good moments this season. I don't think Mundy would had done any better. They started Carter because he knows the defense better then Mundy.
    Maybe he knows the D better than Mundy because they don't coach younger players up well.....never know. Bottom line is safety is obviously the worst position on the team depth wise. I won't be shocked if Troy never plays a 16 game season without some sort of injury that cuts his games in a season down. I remember Tomlin being very high on S/CB Roy Lewis in 2008 and then they cut him in 2009. Wonder if he would of been able to play.
    @_Hellgrammite

  2. #22
    Hall of Famer Mister Pittsburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,678

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Chadman
    Hmm...by saying that depth on Defense is good, but depth on skill positions on Offense isn't good, could Colbert be indicating that the Steelers might go skill position offense early?

    RB? WR?
    If so, then he needs replaced immediately.
    @_Hellgrammite

  3. #23
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Stuart, FL
    Posts
    9,215

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Pittsburgh

    You guys are making my point for me without even realizing it because you are too busy trying to be messageboard snobs.

    Carter was the only option, thus, this is obviously one position we need to address well above others.
    No, your point was that Carter played because LeBeau couldn't "coach up" a younger player to take his spot. Who was the younger player?

    Burgh - you summed up Carter nicely, but again, who is the younger player that the "system should have been simplified" for...Mundy? Him being late to the play wasn't due to the system. His lack of tackling ability wasn't due to the system. His lack of ball skills wasn't due to the system.

    It was all due to his lack of athleticism relative to his opponent.

    He failed to execute (there's that word you like so bad) when he had the chance.

  4. #24
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    12,871

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by BURGH86STEEL
    Quote Originally Posted by feltdizz
    Quote Originally Posted by stlrz d

    There are 4 safties on the roster.

    Troy, Clark, Carter, Mundy.

    Who should have played instead of Carter?
    Mundy.

    I think the point some are trying to make is Carter shouldn't have been on the team to begin with. I just can't fathom Carter being the best of the rest as our #2 going into last season.

    I would have released Carter after the freaking Jacksonville playoff game.
    Carter had some good moments this season. I don't think Mundy would had done any better. They started Carter because he knows the defense better then Mundy.

    I don't believe the team thought that Carter would be starting for a significant amount of time. Unfortunately, that is what happened when Troy went down. I think Carter can fill in for a few games but not over the length of a season.

    One possible solution to a complex defensive scheme is to change it so younger players can get more opportunities. I am not sure that is an option when the Steelers have one of the great difference makers(Troy) playing. It would probably take an element of surprise away from the defense.

    The bottom line is that anytime starters go down they are difficult to replace. There was going to be a drop off one way or another no matter who they played at safety.
    That is my point though... when any position on our team has a back up who is Tyrone Carter bad there is a problem coaching up the young guys.

    What is the point of having an aging player on a team who knows the offense but can't stop a QB or RB who makes half a cut?

    Something is wrong when you give up on quick young guys in a young league for a "safe" older slooth-footed safety. It's like keeping Charlie Batch for another year because he knows the offense but you know if the center snaps the ball too hard he will break something.

    I like Charlie but he is glass... I liked Carter 5 years ago as a not often used trash talking semi decent run stopper but he is trash...

    Sure he was great in the Denver game but the ball was thrown right to him. Now he does have hands.. LOL.. but if the ball is one foot in either direction he isn't catching it.. same with RB's or Wr's..

    it's a real concern when the only viable candidates on defense in certain positions are old aZZZ players who have 7 plus years to learn the D.. yet they can't move around to cover anyone.

  5. #25
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    12,871

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    [quote=stlrz d]
    Quote Originally Posted by "Mister Pittsburgh":1xkfq97w

    You guys are making my point for me without even realizing it because you are too busy trying to be messageboard snobs.

    Carter was the only option, thus, this is obviously one position we need to address well above others.
    No, your point was that Carter played because LeBeau couldn't "coach up" a younger player to take his spot. Who was the younger player?

    Burgh - you summed up Carter nicely, but again, who is the younger player that the "system should have been simplified" for...Mundy? Him being late to the play wasn't due to the system. His lack of tackling ability wasn't due to the system. His lack of ball skills wasn't due to the system.

    It was all due to his lack of athleticism relative to his opponent.

    He failed to execute (there's that word you like so bad) when he had the chance.[/quote:1xkfq97w]

    a few guys were saying Mundy didn't even know what the plays were and seemed confused in the Oakland game.

    my point is why is Carter the best option given the last 4 years of football and all the FS's who have come into the league or were available in FA? My frustration is 32 and 34 year old players being our best options on D as back ups.. while they know the D assignments they don't have the legs to run with these young guys..

    I think Gay was toasted a ton last year but I'm happy he was given the reps and hope he pans out... it was his first year starting and second in the league. I'd rather have a youngin make a few mistakes and learn on the fly then have an old guy know the assignments and get burned.

    I understand Mundy was the only option we had last year... but I think others and myself are questioning why our 2nd stringers in certain positions are old as hell. Could it be Lebeau's scheme is so hard old unathletic players can stay on our D longer then they should?

  6. #26
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,137

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    [quote=stlrz d]
    Quote Originally Posted by "Mister Pittsburgh":3ibm95s9

    You guys are making my point for me without even realizing it because you are too busy trying to be messageboard snobs.

    Carter was the only option, thus, this is obviously one position we need to address well above others.
    No, your point was that Carter played because LeBeau couldn't "coach up" a younger player to take his spot. Who was the younger player?

    Burgh - you summed up Carter nicely, but again, who is the younger player that the "system should have been simplified" for...Mundy? Him being late to the play wasn't due to the system. His lack of tackling ability wasn't due to the system. His lack of ball skills wasn't due to the system.

    It was all due to his lack of athleticism relative to his opponent.

    He failed to execute (there's that word you like so bad) when he had the chance.[/quote:3ibm95s9]

    I think people are to hung up on the words of Rooney. Players mature at different times or points in their careers. The coaches have a better feel for the players then the owners every will. If Lebeau wanted Carter to start over Mundy there was a reason why.

    Mundy might be a better option the Carter this season with one year under his belt. Maybe the game will slow down for him? It took Troy a year to get a good understanding of how to play safety in the NFL.

  7. #27
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,137

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    [quote=feltdizz]
    Quote Originally Posted by stlrz d
    Quote Originally Posted by "Mister Pittsburgh":18qvizml

    You guys are making my point for me without even realizing it because you are too busy trying to be messageboard snobs.

    Carter was the only option, thus, this is obviously one position we need to address well above others.
    No, your point was that Carter played because LeBeau couldn't "coach up" a younger player to take his spot. Who was the younger player?

    Burgh - you summed up Carter nicely, but again, who is the younger player that the "system should have been simplified" for...Mundy? Him being late to the play wasn't due to the system. His lack of tackling ability wasn't due to the system. His lack of ball skills wasn't due to the system.

    It was all due to his lack of athleticism relative to his opponent.

    He failed to execute (there's that word you like so bad) when he had the chance.
    a few guys were saying Mundy didn't even know what the plays were and seemed confused in the Oakland game.

    my point is why is Carter the best option given the last 4 years of football and all the FS's who have come into the league or were available in FA? My frustration is 32 and 34 year old players being our best options on D as back ups.. while they know the D assignments they don't have the legs to run with these young guys..

    I think Gay was toasted a ton last year but I'm happy he was given the reps and hope he pans out... it was his first year starting and second in the league. I'd rather have a youngin make a few mistakes and learn on the fly then have an old guy know the assignments and get burned.

    I understand Mundy was the only option we had last year... but I think others and myself are questioning why our 2nd stringers in certain positions are old as hell. Could it be Lebeau's scheme is so hard old unathletic players can stay on our D longer then they should?[/quote:18qvizml]

    Young or old, if the talent is not there it is not there. I don't think Gay has the talent to be a starter. I thought that when I saw Marvin Harrison run past Gay his rookie year. Gay is probably more suited to play nickel back at this point. The coaches thought other wise and gave him a chance to start. It appears that he does not have the talent to be a full time starter. I guess time is the only way to tell.

    Most people are not ok seeing rookies making mistakes. They usually call those young players busts.

    All teams have to deal with deficiencies at one position or another. It seems to be that most coaches value veteran players.

    I guess some of the 2nd stringers are so old is because they missed on some draft picks. They are not going to hit on every draft pick. It seems to become more difficult to draft quality backups because almost half the league is running the 3-4 defense. I believe that most players coming out of college play in 4-3 defense. That is also a factor into why guys may not see the field as quickly.

  8. #28

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by feltdizz
    That is my point though... when any position on our team has a back up who is Tyrone Carter bad there is a problem coaching up the young guys.

    What is the point of having an aging player on a team who knows the offense but can't stop a QB or RB who makes half a cut?
    My point is that you arn't going to be able to replace a TP.

    Troy is the best SS in the game (maybe the best D player in the game). In a game that had a salary cap, you're not going to have all-star calliber back-ups behind all pro players. So, you're often stuck choosing between a young guy with upside that's not ready and will screw up because he doesn' know better, or an older guy who's savvy will screw up because he's not fast enough. It's like Dixon. If he ends up showing that he's a good to above average QB, we should probabally trade him because it might make our starting team better.

    It's easy to say we should have someone great behing TP, but it's not realistic. I think that's why the question "who should we have been playing" was asked.

    Last year when we were drafting who would you not have picked to pick up a better option to back up TP? Lets say we still trade down in the 2nd. No way you don't pick an O-lineman. It's hard to imagine that we'd go FS last year instead of CB, since CB was our biggest ? on D. You could argue that back up FS was a bigger need than WR, but Wallace fell in our lap and was our best rookie this season and looks like he be good for a while.

    If you're talking about DL not "coaching up" young players, I suppose the only player that might fit the bill was Anthony Smith. It was a shame that he wasn't around this year because I think he was more of a SS than a FS. Maybe we gave up on him too early, but by all accounts he was kind of a douche in practice, and didn't really respect the system in games. He was cut by the Rams after we let him go, and has only dressed for 10 games in the last 2 seasons. So maybe we were right to give up on him, although it looks like he had decent stats in 8 games with the Jags this year (but I didn't really see him play).

  9. #29
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,137

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern_Blitz
    Quote Originally Posted by feltdizz
    That is my point though... when any position on our team has a back up who is Tyrone Carter bad there is a problem coaching up the young guys.

    What is the point of having an aging player on a team who knows the offense but can't stop a QB or RB who makes half a cut?
    My point is that you arn't going to be able to replace a TP.

    Troy is the best SS in the game (maybe the best D player in the game). In a game that had a salary cap, you're not going to have all-star calliber back-ups behind all pro players. So, you're often stuck choosing between a young guy with upside that's not ready and will screw up because he doesn' know better, or an older guy who's savvy will screw up because he's not fast enough. It's like Dixon. If he ends up showing that he's a good to above average QB, we should probabally trade him because it might make our starting team better.

    It's easy to say we should have someone great behing TP, but it's not realistic. I think that's why the question "who should we have been playing" was asked.

    Last year when we were drafting who would you not have picked to pick up a better option to back up TP? Lets say we still trade down in the 2nd. No way you don't pick an O-lineman. It's hard to imagine that we'd go FS last year instead of CB, since CB was our biggest ? on D. You could argue that back up FS was a bigger need than WR, but Wallace fell in our lap and was our best rookie this season and looks like he be good for a while.

    If you're talking about DL not "coaching up" young players, I suppose the only player that might fit the bill was Anthony Smith. It was a shame that he wasn't around this year because I think he was more of a SS than a FS. Maybe we gave up on him too early, but by all accounts he was kind of a douche in practice, and didn't really respect the system in games. He was cut by the Rams after we let him go, and has only dressed for 10 games in the last 2 seasons. So maybe we were right to give up on him, although it looks like he had decent stats in 8 games with the Jags this year (but I didn't really see him play).
    I agree, good points.

  10. #30

    Re: Q & A: Colbert on the '10 Draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn
    Quote Originally Posted by steelerkeylargo
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn
    Quote Originally Posted by steelerkeylargo
    What did you want him to do? Name his top 3 guys at each position?
    Yes

    That would really help me nail down my mock.

    Well it looks like you need some help if you think Ben Tate will last till the 6th round.
    Coming from the guy who believes Patrick Robinson is a top 18 talent.

    Nope if you read it the trade down puts him at top 30 talent!
    Trade our 1/15 to SF for 1/30, 2/56, 4/129

    1/30-Louis Nix-DT-ND
    2/46-Stephon Tuitt-DE-ND
    2/56-Jordan Mathews-WR-Vandy
    3/97-Phillip Gaines-CB-Rice
    4/118-Taylor Hart-DE-Oregon
    4/129-Lache Seastrunk-RB-Baylor
    5/157-Aaron Colvin-DB-Oklahoma
    5/173-Brandon Thomas-OL-Clemson
    6/192-Ka'Deem Carey-RB-Arizona
    6/215-Prince Shembo-OLB_Notre Dame
    7/230-Colt Lyerla-TE-Oregon













Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •