Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: Chance Warmack likely to be there @ 17 when we pick

  1. #21
    Pro Bowler supersteeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    1,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Pittsburgh View Post
    Not that Warmack won't be a great OG in the NFL, and not even a matter that he would be a big upgrade to our team....but I'm leaning toward them NOT drafting another OL in the first round. I think FS, SS, OLB have to be our biggest needs with WR, TE, RB in the second, but not distant, tier. Most people would list ILB as a giant need but we do have a stud in Timmons in there and its not like Larry Foote is some stellar ILB, but he hasn't hurt the team at all.

    Could a Kion Wilson or Brian Rolle play the ILB spot beside Timmons if there are better prospects at other positions?
    I haven't seen Wilson or Rolle play to make any judgement, Larry Foote played decent last season led the team in tackles with 4 sacks which is pretty good for a Steeler ILB. He could be an asset while spence developes or if they think the two above can take his place go for it.
    As for Warmack, I seen him play. He's a dominate guard and IMO could start day one for the Steelers, how many draft picks could start for us?
    I doubt they would pick O-line in round one too, but he would be tempting considering he could provide immediate help for a sputtering offense.

  2. #22
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,198
    agreed

    foote is average at a position where you can get by with since the rest of the unit is loaded.

    time to add to the side of the ball that hasn't been ranked in the top 5 for years



    and you can find similiar average production in the later rounds
    Last edited by NJ-STEELER; 02-16-2013 at 12:14 PM.

  3. #23
    Backup Chucktownsteeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by supersteeler View Post
    http://www.steelersdepot.com/2013/02...t-17th-overall

    I know....it's been said, we won't pick him even if he's there, but it would be tempting. We could end up having one of the best O-lines in the AFC with him. He can play tackle too and fit the BPA motto.
    Wasn't there a previous warning about posting from this site?

  4. #24
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,906
    The No.1 draft pick by the Steelers is not my worry. They have proven to be very good at the cant miss prospects. It is the 2-4 rounds where they really need to find a few gems. This team doesn't have a lot of depth and salary cap issues will prevent signing any decent backups.

  5. #25
    I had been against the Steelers using a #1 on a guard. But after seeing this, I'm not as opposed to the idea, though I still have the same concerns (namely, that it's an overcommitment of resources to an area and that the Steelers will not be able to retain the entire unit).

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...hiefs-at-no-1/

    I've heard a lot of good things about Cooper lately. For those who support the pick of Warmack, would you take Cooper if he was available?

  6. #26
    Hall of Famer Mister Pittsburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,678
    I would go Warmack or Fisher.
    @_Hellgrammite

  7. #27
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Pittsburgh View Post
    Like normal, our offense was the weaker unit, while our defense was really good. Foote was far from a problem. He is however getting older. If Rolle or Kion could play at a Foote level or better then it was a nice pickup, either of them.
    Rolle will have alot more range than Foote and look better in coverage. The question will be how clean does he have to be to make plays between the tackles. 3-4 ILB is a "lunch box" position. You are going to have to work whistle to whistle and make ugly tackles at times falling off blocks between the tackles. That was one thing that Farrior was really exceptional at early in his career. If he was engaged, he would maintain his discipline and fall off the block to make a play..."Crafty Control". Running back hitting the hole thinking the OL-FB-TE has the LB line up but the LB is engaged with control. He is just waiting for the RB to make his cut the way he wants him to so he could make the play. Rolle will have to show good ability to shed and use his hands to control blockers or he will be nothing more than a back-up/nickel backer and ST player. His great athleticism won't be much help between the tackles on the plus side of the LOS. That's where you need to be a football player.



  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by JUST-PLAIN-NASTY View Post
    Rolle will have alot more range than Foote and look better in coverage. The question will be how clean does he have to be to make plays between the tackles. 3-4 ILB is a "lunch box" position. You are going to have to work whistle to whistle and make ugly tackles at times falling off blocks between the tackles. That was one thing that Farrior was really exceptional at early in his career. If he was engaged, he would maintain his discipline and fall off the block to make a play..."Crafty Control". Running back hitting the hole thinking the OL-FB-TE has the LB line up but the LB is engaged with control. He is just waiting for the RB to make his cut the way he wants him to so he could make the play. Rolle will have to show good ability to shed and use his hands to control blockers or he will be nothing more than a back-up/nickel backer and ST player. His great athleticism won't be much help between the tackles on the plus side of the LOS. That's where you need to be a football player.
    Rolle was a MLB at OSU...when they switched to their 3-4 look, his position would have been roughly equivalent to the Steelers "Buck" LB, which is what Farrior played...


    If the D-Line can cover him up, he may work out...

  9. #29
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13,131
    Hell no on OL in the first.

  10. #30
    Hall of Famer Mister Pittsburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,678
    As a polar opposite I would say hell yes on OL in the first if it is the right OL. Every single rule they have modified in the past half decade favors the offense. They are even talking about widening the field which will favor the offense. On one hand we have seen first hand what having your OL injured with inferior backups gets you. No running game. No time to throw the ball. But on the other hand, when Harrison, Troy, Woodley go down our defense still performed well.

    Bottom line is I have zero comfort in heading into the season with Gilbert-Beachum-Pouncey-DeCastro-Adams with possibly Malecki, Legursky and Foster (if they even bring those two back) as our backups. I would rather plug Fisher, Johnson at LT for Gilbert and have Gilbert as a backup, or Warmack into LG with Beachum as backup depth at OG and OT.
    @_Hellgrammite

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
  •