Why not Urbik?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Captain Lemming
    Legend
    • Jun 2008
    • 16041
    #1

    Why not Urbik?

    With the positive comments about Fosters play, it kinda got me thinking about Urbik. I know it is too early to start the "Urbust" (an ode to Bustamalu ) talk, but how in the heck is a free agent rookie outplaying our second draft pick?

    We always talk about giving rookies time, but Foster is a rook too and he is ahead of Urbik.
    sigpic



    In view of the fact that Mike Tomlin has matched Cowhers record I give him the designation:

    TCFCLTC-
    The Coach Formerly Considered Less Than Cowher
    Tags: None
    • MeetJoeGreene
      Hall of Famer
      • May 2008
      • 3221
      #2
      Re: Why not Urbik?

      Originally posted by Captain Lemming
      With the positive comments about Fosters play, it kinda got me thinking about Urbik. I know it is too early to start the "Urbust" (an ode to Bustamalu ) talk, but how in the heck is a free agent rookie outplaying our second draft pick?

      We always talk about giving rookies time, but Foster is a rook too and he is ahead of Urbik.
      I know. That is beginning to worry me... especially this late in the season.

      I really hope Kemo is going to be back this week -- did anyone hear anything?
      Cleveland spelled backwards is DNA Level C
      http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/d...itty29/mjg.jpg
      another AA/AS original.

        Comment

        • Oviedo
          Legend
          • May 2008
          • 23824
          #3
          Re: Why not Urbik?

          How about Foster is just a very good player who the "experts" evaluated incorrectly? It doesn't have to mean that anything is wrong with Urbik or he won't be a good Pro. Players develop at a different rate. They have individual strengths and weaknesses.

          Why does everything have to be charactized in the negative (something wrong with Urbik) versus the positive (Foster has done very well)?

          I also believe that Foster has been active all season because he can play BOTH OG and OT. Therefore he has more gameday flexibility. Urbik is more a pure Guard.

          It drives me crazy how some of the fans on this board want to "eat their young" if they don't get some kind of immeditate gratification from rookies. They are rookies. They are taking the biggest step in difficulty in their playing careers in a league that is the ultimate level of talent. One size does not fit all for when they are ready.
          "My team, may they always be right, but right or wrong...MY TEAM!"

            Comment

            • JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
              Hall of Famer
              • May 2008
              • 3937
              #4
              Re: Why not Urbik?

              Urbik's ceiling is much higher than Foster's. Foster's mobility is limited. Foster looks like he was evaluated on the outside through the draft process. If he played G in college I think he would of been drafted in the mid to late rounds. Foster's dressing before his starts was a numbers issue like another poster said. 7 dress and one needs to be a back-up C. If Urbik dressed, you would have all three "possible tackles" starting. That being Essex as LT2,RT2, & Colon as LT3. If it ever came down to Colon as LT3 in a game, (God help us), You really don't have a good option at RT. Urbik is no OT at this level. Foster & Legursky dressing gives you an extra OT as well as keeping the interior back-up the same. The most important thing in game when an OL goes down is replacing by player over movement. You would rather insert a new face then move a starter and insert a new face, if you can. Activating Hills over Urbik against the Packers is the same reasoning. More a versatility issue. One thing I do hear is that Urbik might be working on the versatiltiy issue. They still want to get Urbik time at C come next camp. That really might be his best position based on his skill set if he can get the shotgun snaps down. He seems to excel with blocking when his gaps are closed & he is a very football smart. It will be interesting to see what happens with him in the future.

                Comment

                • pfelix73
                  Hall of Famer
                  • Aug 2008
                  • 3458
                  #5
                  Re: Why not Urbik?

                  Urbik had a lousy training camp and was pushed around quite a bit, from what I remember. Yea, he may just need a few years to develop and learn. The only way I see him getting in to the starting rotation would be injury or someone leaves via FA. We'll have Stapleton back next year too and will be somewhere on the depth chart. Maybe at C.

                  6- Time Super Bowl Champions......
                  IX X XIII XIV XL XLIII

                  2012 MNF Executive Champion

                  sigpic



                    Comment

                    • RuthlessBurgher
                      Legend
                      • May 2008
                      • 33208
                      #6
                      Re: Why not Urbik?

                      The book on Urbik even before he was drafted was that he is not impressive in one-on-one drills, but he plays well in actual games. This was on display at the Senior Bowl, when he was underwhelming in the practices during the week, but played well in the game itself. Urbik has not look good in drills in Latrobe or at practice during the year. He does not have the opportunity yet to show what he can do in actual games, though.
                      Steeler teams featuring stat-driven, me-first, fantasy-football-darling diva types such as Antonio Brown & Le'Veon Bell won no championships.

                      Super Bowl winning Steeler teams were built around a dynamic, in-your-face defense plus blue-collar, hard-hitting, no-nonsense football players on offense such as Hines Ward & Jerome Bettis.

                      We don't want Juju & Conner to replace what we lost in Brown & Bell.

                      We are counting on Juju & Conner to return us to the glory we once had with Hines & The Bus.

                        Comment

                        • Shoe
                          Hall of Famer
                          • May 2008
                          • 4044
                          #7
                          Re: Why not Urbik?

                          And if I recall, Foster is no neophyte when it comes to playing. He played in 40+ games at a University of Tennessee; and he is a BIG load. It is a bit of a surprise I'm sure, to the staff. But it's too early to say anything, other than Foster has probably pleasantly stepped up into the role.
                          I wasn't hired for my disposition.

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...