Chiefs, Mahommes SB era done. Your salary cap advantage just ended.

[hawaiiansteel]

Agreed. Some don’t want to hear that but it’s the truth.

who doesn't want to hear that?

[Northern_Blitz]

Well yeah any generational QBs will elevate those coaches to a different stratosphere, that's a given. The point is that he was already better in comparison before Mahomes.

I don't agree at all he would look like Marty, who finished 5-13 in the playoffs and had Drew Brees for years. He was a horrible playoff coach.

I don't think you and I would compare him to Marty necessarily.

Personally, I'd probably just never really think about him. He'd be like Marty in that he'd be a successful coach who wouldn't be in the Hall VS a guy who is now certain to get in.

But there are people on here who think coaches with sub 500 playoff records are terrible full stop. No context required. And that's what AR was without Mahomes. And McNabb was a good QB (more awards than Ben I think... Probably because NFC had weaker QBs though).

Would have been better if I said 'He'd look like Marty to many of the posters here".

Many who now hype AR would be first on the Reid hate train in this alternate universe.

Just like how they would have hated Reid in Philly for never winning a SB.

Like the haters felt about Cowher before he got a great QB.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the most important thing for us now is KP being at least above average.

If he isn't, we aren't likely to be competitive no matter what we do scheme or cap wise. I think those are 2nd to "do you have a good QB? Preferably one that's at least one of elite or super cheap".

[WindyCitySteel]

I don't think you and I would compare him to Marty necessarily.

Personally, I'd probably just never really think about him. He'd be like Marty in that he'd be a successful coach who wouldn't be in the Hall VS a guy who is now certain to get in.

But there are people on here who think coaches with sub 500 playoff records are terrible full stop. No context required. And that's what AR was without Mahomes. And McNabb was a good QB (more awards than Ben I think... Probably because NFC had weaker QBs though).

Would have been better if I said 'He'd look like Marty to many of the posters here".

Many who now hype AR would be first on the Reid hate train in this alternate universe.

Just like how they would have hated Reid in Philly for never winning a SB.

Like the haters felt about Cowher before he got a great QB.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the most important thing for us now is KP being at least above average.

If he isn't, we aren't likely to be competitive no matter what we do scheme or cap wise. I think those are 2nd to "do you have a good QB? Preferably one that's at least one of elite or super cheap".

Of the 3 coaches mentioned here - Reid pre-Mahomes, Cowher, and Tomlin, Tomlin by far had the best QB situation for the longest span, so the "sub-.500 playoff records" are not all cut from the same cloth. He's twice had to coach seasons without Ben, both times he failed to make the playoffs, one of those times after the expanded playoff field was introduced.

[Northern_Blitz]

Of the 3 coaches mentioned here - Reid pre-Mahomes, Cowher, and Tomlin, Tomlin by far had the best QB situation for the longest span, so the "sub-.500 playoff records" are not all cut from the same cloth. He's twice had to coach seasons without Ben, both times he failed to make the playoffs, one of those times after the expanded playoff field was introduced.

I think this isn't unreasonable.

My point isn't that Tomlin is better than these other guys. Just that they are in the same tier. I've said multiple times here that I think Tomlin had fallen in that tier in recent years.

I also think Tomlin probably had the hardest competition in conference of these guys so it was harder to get higher seeds.

Again, all I'm arguing is that we need KP to be at least above average (probably better given the state of QBs in the AFC) if we want to compete for SBs.

[NJ-STEELER]

I think the Hill thing hadn't happened yet. But I think it happened right after. I think they just got their ducks in a row (have Juju) before getting rid of Hill because of the cap hit.

I don't think that the offensive weapons KC had this year were better than Brown and Bell in their primes. I don't get why you think the Steelers didn't put assets into the offense. We spent multiple early picks on the OL to protect Ben. We had an elite RB (and drafted Mendenhall before that). Seems like we drafted a WR in the 2nd or 3rd ever year.

The problem was when Shazier got hurt, the D was bad when the offense peaked.

And Ben lost what made him Ben when he got older and could consistently shrug off DTs with ease, then bomb it to the WR that was open because the DB covering him had to pick his jaw up off the turf. Ben was absolutely amazing to watch in his prime. But that style isn't one that's build for longevity.

I think it's kind of surprising that Ben stayed as good as he did despite losing his ability to extend plays indefinitely. I think it really puts the lie to the "he's just lazy doesn't practice of study the playbook" narrative that was always floating out there.

to me, spending 2nd and 3rd rounder on WRs isn't exactly setting up your biggest asset.

just look at our history at left tackle. probably the 2nd more position on offense.
beachum 7th rounder
villa - street free agent/former WR

can you honestly try and tell me they've addressed that position like other teams with their franchise QBs did?
brady, rodgers, etc

[Northern_Blitz]

to me, spending 2nd and 3rd rounder on WRs isn't exactly setting up your biggest asset.

just look at our history at left tackle. probably the 2nd more position on offense.
beachum 7th rounder
villa - street free agent/former WR

can you honestly try and tell me they've addressed that position like other teams with their franchise QBs did?
brady, rodgers, etc

I don't have the time, but it would be interesting to see who the LTs were that were available when we made picks over the decade.

And then we got AV. Who we picked up for nothing and turned into a pretty good LT. And since he was already pretty good with years ahead of him, it didn't make sense to spend high draft capital on LT. Especially after Shazier got hurt and we had to try to rebuild the D on the fly so they could be at least reasonably good while the O was at it's peak (something we didn't end up accomplishing IMO).

I don't think it's too surprising that a team that usually drafts in the back half of the first (after the best Ts are gone) tends to draft iOL with the higher draft picks they spend on the position group.

And then after they invest in the OL, they let it sit for a long time. Because OL have longer careers than most positions.

And while I think we drafted too many WRs that didn't really pan out, I get the strategy of continually spending high picks on WRs so you don't have to pay the 2nd contracts on WRs (which are too high for what they bring IMO). Especially when you have a HoF QB, who (at least in his prime) tended to make just about any WR look pretty good. I think Sanders is our only WR that left in Ben's prime years that really did anything somewhere else.

[NJ-STEELER]

And while I think we drafted too many WRs that didn't really pan out, I get the strategy of continually spending high picks on WRs so you don't have to pay the 2nd contracts on WRs (which are too high for what they bring IMO). Especially when you have a HoF QB, who (at least in his prime) tended to make just about any WR look pretty good. I think Sanders is our only WR that left in Ben's prime years that really did anything somewhere else.

you also have to take into account a few of higher picks where we took a WR was because we needed a replacement.

starting with Bryant.
theN AB
JUJU

a bit different then the bengals drafting Higgins high 2nd round and chase the following year at 5 overall.
that’s 4-5 years together with rookie contracts.
they also re upped Boyd ( 2nd rounder in 2016) right before drafting burrow and Higgins.

[whatever]

I think there are numerous philosophies that can win a Super Bowl.
The problem I have is our fans thinking ours is the only way and it should never be deviated from.
To be honest, our first 4 super bowls were before this current form of free agency. We have been fortunate enough to win 2 in this era. I know it’s fun to say we have 6 rings(which we do) but we need to look at how the Steelers compare to the other teams during this time period. Better than lots but not elite like you want to believe.
It’s funny how certain fans on here like to make fun of the browns. I’m guessing that they don’t know history and don’t realize their success before the Super Bowl was invented.
I know this is a steeler fan message board and certain fans want it to be all rah rah but some objectively would be welcomed.

[Northern_Blitz]

I think there are numerous philosophies that can win a Super Bowl.
The problem I have is our fans thinking ours is the only way and it should never be deviated from.
To be honest, our first 4 super bowls were before this current form of free agency. We have been fortunate enough to win 2 in this era. I know it’s fun to say we have 6 rings(which we do) but we need to look at how the Steelers compare to the other teams during this time period. Better than lots but not elite like you want to believe.
It’s funny how certain fans on here like to make fun of the browns. I’m guessing that they don’t know history and don’t realize their success before the Super Bowl was invented.
I know this is a steeler fan message board and certain fans want it to be all rah rah but some objectively would be welcomed.

It seems like all of these philosophies requires either an elite QB, or an above-average QB on a rookie deal.

Look at SF. They are probably doing most of the other things very well. But when they face a good QB in the playoffs (there are fewer in the NFC I believe), they lose.

Seems like you need to get QB right to be "successful" when "successful" is defined as "win a SB".

[Captain Lemming]

I think there are numerous philosophies that can win a Super Bowl.
The problem I have is our fans thinking ours is the only way and it should never be deviated from.
To be honest, our first 4 super bowls were before this current form of free agency. We have been fortunate enough to win 2 in this era. I know it’s fun to say we have 6 rings(which we do) but we need to look at how the Steelers compare to the other teams during this time period. Better than lots but not elite like you want to believe.
It’s funny how certain fans on here like to make fun of the browns. I’m guessing that they don’t know history and don’t realize their success before the Super Bowl was invented.
I know this is a steeler fan message board and certain fans want it to be all rah rah but some objectively would be welcomed.

I love being objective. But dont confuse it with negativity.

Look at THIS comment. Do you realize that you SIMULTANEOUSLY downplay 4 our our six SBs and HIGHLIGHT that the zero SB Browns do indeed have pre-SB era championships?

Here is the difference my friend.
“I” and many others remember 6 Steeler SBs.
I turn 59 tomorrow and the last time the Browns won a championship WAS THE YEAR OF MY BIRTH.

(My arrival and a 6 decade long period of Brown ineptitude- coincidence? I think not).

Most folks who EVER saw a Browns championship are DEAD, half of the few remaining cant remember where they live if they get lost, so what do a few championships in an era that only “Bob the Revelator” can actually remember matter?

[feltdizz]

I think there are numerous philosophies that can win a Super Bowl.
The problem I have is our fans thinking ours is the only way and it should never be deviated from.
To be honest, our first 4 super bowls were before this current form of free agency. We have been fortunate enough to win 2 in this era. I know it’s fun to say we have 6 rings(which we do) but we need to look at how the Steelers compare to the other teams during this time period. Better than lots but not elite like you want to believe.
It’s funny how certain fans on here like to make fun of the browns. I’m guessing that they don’t know history and don’t realize their success before the Super Bowl was invented.
I know this is a steeler fan message board and certain fans want it to be all rah rah but some objectively would be welcomed.

better than lots but not elite..hmmmm

so who is elite besides the Pats during our last 2 SB’s from 2000 to 2023? Hell, lets go back to the 80’s until now if you would like.

Who has won more than 2 SB’s besides the Pats? Giants maybe? But how do their down years compare to ours? Who has 4 SB appearances and at least 2 wins?

I’m not saying there aren’t others but the list probably isn’t long. We’ve had a drought recently that also coincided with an aging QB and a D that went from legendary to average while also having a horrifying injury to its play caller on defense in his prime.

This isn’t a trick question, I just want to know who fills the spaces between Pats and Steelers while using the word elite these last 30 years.

[whatever]

I love being objective. But dont confuse it with negativity.

Look at THIS comment. Do you realize that you SIMULTANEOUSLY downplay 4 our our six SBs and HIGHLIGHT that the zero SB Browns do indeed have pre-SB era championships?

Here is the difference my friend.
“I” and many others remember 6 Steeler SBs.
I turn 59 tomorrow and the last time the Browns won a championship WAS THE YEAR OF MY BIRTH.

(Yes, I take full credit for creating their near 6 decade long period of ineptitude)

Most folks who EVER saw a Browns championship are DEAD so what do a few championships in an era that only “Bob the Revelator” can actually remember.

You are missing the point. I love telling my friends that my team has 6 super bowls but you also need to take other things into consideration.
To act like the nfl didn’t exist and records and titles aren’t worth anything until the Super Bowl was invited is ridiculous.
Apparently most of the people in HOFs that played over 50 years ago weren’t any good because you didn’t watch them
play?
You can’t compare todays players to players of 50 years ago.
You can’t compare teams of today vs 50 years ago.
You also can’t compare how the 4 Super Bowl Steelers were built to how the steelers operate today.
Those teams would have been raped in FA if the rules were set up that way.
I’m not taking anything away from those wins.
The fact is the ‘Steelers way’ of putting together teams today is nowhere near what it was back then.

[whatever]

It seems like all of these philosophies requires either an elite QB, or an above-average QB on a rookie deal.

Look at SF. They are probably doing most of the other things very well. But when they face a good QB in the playoffs (there are fewer in the NFC I believe), they lose.

Seems like you need to get QB right to be "successful" when "successful" is defined as "win a SB".

I think we debunked that ‘rookie qb contract’ a couple months ago.
I agree with a great qb, most of the time.

[Captain Lemming]

You also can’t compare how the 4 Super Bowl Steelers were built to how the steelers operate today.
Those teams would have been raped in FA if the rules were set up that way.

I actually BELIEVE wholeheartedly in this point. It is why the expectation of a 70s dynasty just because you have the 5th or 6th best QB among his peers is a flawed expectation.

[Northern_Blitz]

I think we debunked that ‘rookie qb contract’ a couple months ago.
I agree with a great qb, most of the time.

Link?

It's the biggest advantage in the league to have an above average QB on a rookie deal. QBs on those deals are massively underpaid. And within a give year, the cap makes roster management (close to) a zero sum game.