Steelers spend twice as many dollars on defense

**Oviedo** · 01-07-2013, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Steelhere10

They always invest on the defensive side, I have preached that before so it really don't matter who is the defensive coordinator they will always be tops on that side always have always will and it goes back to the 70s and it will continue to be that way after the great one is retired. But the way of the defense is gone every since King Roger became the commissioner, it's time for the team to adjust the way they run things even their free agent strategy is dying. Teams in the league now, even the Bengal spend in free agency yet we try and keep our own even when those players are past their prime.

Agree. Kind of hard to blame our offense when the defense is constantly getting the lion's share of the resources for players who are marginally performing.

The gist of my 4-3 ramblings have always been about the defenses costs with regards to taking two years to train someone versus having rookies come in and play their natural positions. We have to retain more expensive players because we have younger players in the "apprenticeship program" for too long and then when they start to play we have to give them a big second contract.

Our methodology on the defensive side of the ball is expensive to maintain and with the lowest numbers of sacks and INTs in decades we aren't getting value for money.

**Slapstick** · 01-07-2013, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Oviedo

Agree. Kind of hard to blame our offense when the defense is constantly getting the lion's share of the resources for players who are marginally performing.

The defense was 6th in scoring defense...

The offense was 22nd in scoring offense...we got our money's worth from the defense...

The Steelers offense lost 16 fumbles and threw 14 INTs...that has nothing to do with paying the defense...

**Oviedo** · 01-07-2013, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Slapstick

The defense was 6th in scoring defense...

The offense was 22nd in scoring offense...we got our money's worth from the defense...

The Steelers offense lost 16 fumbles and threw 14 INTs...that has nothing to do with paying the defense...

...and how many fumbles did the defense force? How many INT did they make? Aren't they suppose to make these things happen since they are #1! (Hint: they were bottom half of the league in both)

**feltdizz** · 01-07-2013, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Oviedo

...and how many fumbles did the defense force? How many INT did they make? Aren't they suppose to make these things happen since they are #1! (Hint: they were bottom half of the league in both)

more turnovers by the D would only mean more chances for the O to screw something up!

**Sugar** · 01-07-2013, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Oviedo

...and how many fumbles did the defense force? How many INT did they make? Aren't they suppose to make these things happen since they are #1! (Hint: they were bottom half of the league in both)

I guess I have different philosophy when it comes to defense. To me, keeping the other team from scoring is the #1 priority. Behind that, gaining or maintaining field position. Turnovers are great, but they are the happy side-effects that can happen with a good defense and not necessarily a characteristic of one.

**phillyesq** · 01-07-2013, 03:06 PM

The Steelers make a pretty good effort to balance between offense and defense in the draft. Here is a link to their draft history. Of their past 3 drafts, 6 of 9 premium (picks within the first three rounds) were on offense.

[URL]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit/draft.htm[/URL]

The salary imbalance right now is largely a result of two factors. First, age. The defense is older and has more veterans. More of the key players on offense, including most of the RBs and WRs, were on initial contracts or tenders. Brown was extended but had little cap hit this year, the first of the deal. On the offensive line, many of the key players, including 2 first and 2 second round picks, are on initial contracts. There is an experience imbalance between the units, but not necessarily a talent imbalance.

The second factor is that many picks on offense have not panned out, for whatever reason. Holmes would be in the midst of a second contract if he wasn't an absolute turd. Sweed did not work out, Mendenhall may not work out, Urbik is gone, etc. Maybe the prima donna nature of many WRs makes them incompatible with the Steelers - Hines was the only guy of any significance to stay with the Steelers beyond his initial contract. Wallace will probably follow Burress and Holmes as a one contract WR.

**phillyesq** · 01-07-2013, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Oviedo

The gist of my 4-3 ramblings have always been about the defenses costs with regards to taking two years to train someone versus having rookies come in and play their natural positions. We have to retain more expensive players because we have younger players in the "apprenticeship program" for too long and then when they start to play we have to give them a big second contract.

And these ramblings fail to account for the fact that 4-3 DEs and DTs do not often make impacts as rookies, either. Your ramblings also fail to account for the fact that 4-3 DEs are among the highest paid players in the game (I believe their franchise number is second only two QBs). As a general rule, linebackers are cheaper than defensive lineman, but the 4-3 requires more of those more expensive players.

**Oviedo** · 01-07-2013, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by phillyesq

And these ramblings fail to account for the fact that 4-3 DEs and DTs do not often make impacts as rookies, either. Your ramblings also fail to account for the fact that 4-3 DEs are among the highest paid players in the game (I believe their franchise number is second only two QBs). As a general rule, linebackers are cheaper than defensive lineman, but the 4-3 requires more of those more expensive players.

The cheaper OLB are also harder to find and develop which is why the star DEs get paid more since they produce more and usually sooner. That is because they are more of a sure thing versus taking DEs who can't play at the NFL level and hoping you can make something out of them. DEs get paid alot because they are worth it.

**Oviedo** · 01-07-2013, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sugar

I guess I have different philosophy when it comes to defense. To me, keeping the other team from scoring is the #1 priority. Behind that, gaining or maintaining field position. Turnovers are great, but they are the happy side-effects that can happen with a good defense and not necessarily a characteristic of one.

The QB can't score on his back and the opponents can't score if we intercept the ball. We want the same thing but want to get there different ways. Being the #1 defense still lost us 8 games and out of the play-offs. I think we can both agree that the #1 ranking was pretty meaningless.

**phillyesq** · 01-07-2013, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Oviedo

The cheaper OLB are also harder to find and develop which is why the star DEs get paid more since they produce more and usually sooner. That is because they are more of a sure thing versus taking DEs who can't play at the NFL level and hoping you can make something out of them. DEs get paid alot because they are worth it.

The star DEs get paid more because they are rare, like franchise QBs and LTs. Supply and demand. If it was easy to find somebody who would come in as a rookie and play as a star DE, salaries for DEs would be depressed. Simple economics - the easier it is to replace a player the less value that player has.