Ovi Draft

[focosteeler]

he could be a 3 down linebacker if you just make him rush the passer on 3rd downs and let timmons do coverage

[RuthlessBurgher]

I protest the Fleener pick solely on the basis of this awful Tom Brady/Justin Bieber wannabe haircut:



Luckily, since he went to Stanford and all, he was smart enough to shave that crap off before the combine. Whew...

[Sugar]

I protest the Fleener pick solely on the basis of this awful Tom Brady/Justin Bieber wannabe haircut:



Luckily, since he went to Stanford and all, he was smart enough to shave that crap off before the combine. Whew...

It's hair. It grows back. Nothing wrong with being fashionable.

[feltdizz]

Kendrell Bell came in and produced his rookie season. Now after that season we have a different story, but it is possible. Although that wasn't under Lebeau. I think he could produce. I also feel that we have two UDFA as starters at OG. That needs addressed.

Yeah you pretty much proved Ovi's point. If we have to go back 10 to 15 years and all we can use is Bell for an example and it was BEFORE Lebeau was DC it doesn't really help the argument.

[phillyesq]

Yeah you pretty much proved Ovi's point. If we have to go back 10 to 15 years and all we can use is Bell for an example and it was BEFORE Lebeau was DC it doesn't really help the argument.

The primary reason that few rookies have started on Lebeaus defense is because the starters have been pretty good. Looking at the most recent premium picks on D, Ziggy Hood and Heyward, they were behind Aaron Smith and Brett Keisel as drafted. You aren't going to cast aside a premium player, or even a solid starter, for the sake of starting a rookie. Timmons couldn't beat out Larry Foote for the starting gig in his second year; that is on Timmons, not DL, who used him effectively as a nickel LB.

The weakest spot on D has traditionally been the corner opposite Ike Taylor. Corners take time to develop and play in any system. That isn't exclusive to DL.

[Dee Dub]

Yeah you pretty much proved Ovi's point. If we have to go back 10 to 15 years and all we can use is Bell for an example and it was BEFORE Lebeau was DC it doesn't really help the argument.

Ovi really doesnt have a point if for the past 10-15 years or so, the Steelers have never drafted a defensive player who played in a near identical defense as what LeBeau runs.

That can change this year. But if playing rookie is based on stubborness, then there isnt anything I can say about that. Dont'a Hightower has the ability as well as the knowledge of the defense to make it happen day one.

[feltdizz]

Hightower coming from a 3-4 is a plus but the learning curve is still high.

[Dee Dub]

Hightower coming from a 3-4 is a plus but the learning curve is still high.

I disagree. The defense that Saban and LeBeau run are near identical. Only learning there will be is the terminology. Having played football half of his life I am sure he has hasnt had a hard time doing that.

But if you guys want to keep thinking it is too daunting of a task then knock yourself out. This isnt jet propulsion laboratory stuff.

[Chadman]

The whole "Rookies don't start in a LeBeau Defense" argument only holds water if the rookie is immediately better than the player in front of him.

The thing is- the Steelers are EXCELLENT at going into a draft with no immediate need for a starter to be found.

Take a look at this upcoming season- name the position, right now, where an immediate starter must come from the draft. There isn't one- even with our belief that we need an ILB, NT, OG, FS etc- there are already established players in place to hold that spot until a better player beats them out.

While our rookies might, and in most cases certainly do, have greater potential than the incumbant starter, it's still only potential. There is something positive to be said in that no rookie is just 'handed' a job- they have to prove they can earn it.

Rushing rookies into starting line-ups is a bit like rushing racehorses into racing- if they are not physically & mentally ready to go, putting them in the frying pan can actually hinder, or in some cases damage their progression.

It's not necessarily a bad thing that we don't need our rookies to start- regardless of how some posters see it.

[Dee Dub]

The whole "Rookies don't start in a LeBeau Defense" argument only holds water if the rookie is immediately better than the player in front of him.

The thing is- the Steelers are EXCELLENT at going into a draft with no immediate need for a starter to be found.

Take a look at this upcoming season- name the position, right now, where an immediate starter must come from the draft. There isn't one- even with our belief that we need an ILB, NT, OG, FS etc- there are already established players in place to hold that spot until a better player beats them out.

While our rookies might, and in most cases certainly do, have greater potential than the incumbant starter, it's still only potential. There is something positive to be said in that no rookie is just 'handed' a job- they have to prove they can earn it.

Rushing rookies into starting line-ups is a bit like rushing racehorses into racing- if they are not physically & mentally ready to go, putting them in the frying pan can actually hinder, or in some cases damage their progression.

It's not necessarily a bad thing that we don't need our rookies to start- regardless of how some posters see it.

Excuse me if I dont believe that Larry Foote is an adequate starter. He isnt. 3 games into next season fans will be calling for his head. He is nothing more than a back up. He will get exposed over any length of time.

I believe that Hightower isnt the typical rookie. I think he is a cut above. A player who already has mastered the complexity of the 3-4 zone blitz. Look at how he was used in Saban's 3-4 and you should be able to see a player who isnt the norm.

But I get it. You are happy with Larry Foote.

[steelz09]

I assumed Glenn and DeCastro are gone or my pick would have been Glenn. Then I looked at Fleenor and Hightower. The deciding factor was that Fleenor would play and contribute and Hightower would watch and learn. If my ILB is going to spend at least a year watching and learning then why not get one in Round 3 or 4.

I also picked Fleenor because we have a real issue if Miller ever gets hurt. There is absolutley no one behind him who could fill in. That would be a very serious loss to the offense.

As far as WVU players I still advocate we sign Owen Schmitt to a FA contract. Does that count? He would be a significant improvement over David Johnson.

Who is better on this team at ILB than Hightower? Are you saying your favorite coach Lebeau will start Larry Foote over Hightower?

[hawaiiansteel]

Who is better on this team at ILB than Hightower? Are you saying your favorite coach Lebeau will start Larry Foote over Hightower?

actually, I think Larry Foote would start ahead of Hightower to begin the season. you do realize what a complex defense we have for a rookie to learn, don't you?

[steelz09]

actually, I think Larry Foote would start ahead of Hightower to begin the season. you do realize what a complex defense we have for a rookie to learn, don't you?

Yes, I hear the enrollment exam to our defense is decoding the human genome with a perfect score

[birtikidis]

I love how people don't want Hightower bc he'd have to learn the defense. Really? You'd rather not draft the better player and end up with a career backup and still have to draft a talented lune backer in a different draft? And flee or would sit anyway. You really think they're gonna sit Heath? Or do you suppose we just go two wide? And hell the guy isn't even a first round talent to begin with. I like the rest of your draft but I'm tired of your constant whining about lebeau. Give it a break already it's pathetic.

[birtikidis]

The whole "Rookies don't start in a LeBeau Defense" argument only holds water if the rookie is immediately better than the player in front of him.

The thing is- the Steelers are EXCELLENT at going into a draft with no immediate need for a starter to be found.

Take a look at this upcoming season- name the position, right now, where an immediate starter must come from the draft. There isn't one- even with our belief that we need an ILB, NT, OG, FS etc- there are already established players in place to hold that spot until a better player beats them out.

While our rookies might, and in most cases certainly do, have greater potential than the incumbant starter, it's still only potential. There is something positive to be said in that no rookie is just 'handed' a job- they have to prove they can earn it.

Rushing rookies into starting line-ups is a bit like rushing racehorses into racing- if they are not physically & mentally ready to go, putting them in the frying pan can actually hinder, or in some cases damage their progression.

It's not necessarily a bad thing that we don't need our rookies to start- regardless of how some posters see it.

I personally believe that guard is a position where an actual talented player could, neigh, needs to come in and start. Our o line is atrocious and having a kid with talent next to Gilbert would be huge.