Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

[hawaiiansteel]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

Draftek is certainly interesting, but its computer simulation model can spit out some awfully quirky results at times.

However, based on who they have landing in Pittsburgh in their current 7 round mock, I would be absolutely ridiculously thrilled with those first 3 picks in particular.

1. Anthony Davis, OT, Rutgers
2. Nate Allen, FS, South Florida
3. Donovan Warren, CB, Michigan
4. Willie Young, OLB, N.C. State
5. Daryl Sharpton, ILB, Miami
6. Richard Dickson, FB, LSU
7. Leigh Tiffin, K, Alabama

Anthony Davis will be long gone by the time the Steelers select at #18 as he and Russell Okung are the two highest rated OTs. It would be much more realistic if they had us taking either Bryan Bulaga, Trent Williams or Bruce Campbell if they thought we were going OT in the first round.

I agree with that. This is the lowest I have seen Davis in any mock so far. I think Okung and Davis are both off the board in the top 10, but I would take either if they happened to fall. I would also take Campbell or Bulaga as well. I'm not as high on Trent Williams though. If the top 4 OT's are off the board, I would prefer Earl Thomas or Dan Williams there.

although there is no argument that Bruce Campbell is a physical specimen who will "wow" people at the Combine, I feel about Campbell the way you do about Williams.

besides Okung and Davis, the only other OT i would draft at #18 would be Bulaga. if those three are all off the board, i would prefer Thomas or Williams as well.

[steelblood]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

Draftek is certainly interesting, but its computer simulation model can spit out some awfully quirky results at times.

However, based on who they have landing in Pittsburgh in their current 7 round mock, I would be absolutely ridiculously thrilled with those first 3 picks in particular.

1. Anthony Davis, OT, Rutgers
2. Nate Allen, FS, South Florida
3. Donovan Warren, CB, Michigan
4. Willie Young, OLB, N.C. State
5. Daryl Sharpton, ILB, Miami
6. Richard Dickson, FB, LSU
7. Leigh Tiffin, K, Alabama

Anthony Davis will be long gone by the time the Steelers select at #18 as he and Russell Okung are the two highest rated OTs. It would be much more realistic if they had us taking either Bryan Bulaga, Trent Williams or Bruce Campbell if they thought we were going OT in the first round.

I agree with that. This is the lowest I have seen Davis in any mock so far. I think Okung and Davis are both off the board in the top 10, but I would take either if they happened to fall. I would also take Campbell or Bulaga as well. I'm not as high on Trent Williams though. If the top 4 OT's are off the board, I would prefer Earl Thomas or Dan Williams there.

There is some discussion that Trent Williams was injured this year. He struggled with technique too. But, after Davis, he is the best run blocking tackle in the draft. He could play all five positions. When healthy, and with some good coaching, he has a much higher ceiling than the kid from Iowa. If we could trade down a few spots and still get Williams, I'd be thrilled. I think he'll be a very good pro with the right o-line coach.

[Oviedo]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

Good background read whatever side of the argument you are on. Identifies the challenges of stocking the 3-4 with talent

Inside the NFL: Upgrading 4-3 defense easier than switching to 3-4
By Mark Gaughan
NEWS NFL COLUMNIST
Updated: January 30, 2010, 10:59 pm /
Published: January 24, 2010, 12:09 am
Buffalo Bills fans should be apprehensive about a move to a 3-4 defense. It's a hard transition to go from a Tony Dungy-style 4-3 defense to a 3-4 scheme.

The biggest difficulty is it's hard to find an elite nose tackle to clog the middle. The 3-4 also ideally puts big men — 285 pounds and up — at defensive end. If they're 295 pounds, even better. The inside linebackers should be in the 240-pound range. The outside linebackers should be athletic guys in the 255- to 265-pound range.

One could argue that it's a bit easier to find outside linebackers at 255 pounds who can rush the passer than to find elite defensive ends at 270 who can rush the passer.

Nevertheless, in the 4-3 defense, there's more wiggle room in terms of the prototypes on the defensive line and at linebacker.

This year 13 teams played the 3-4 as their base defense. Washington is considering shifting to it with Jim Haslett as the new defensive chief. He has coached both the 3-4 and 4-3 in his career.

Three teams in recent years have cycled through a head coach in the process of switching from the 4-3 to the 3-4. They were the Jets (Eric Mangini), the 49ers (Mike Nolan) and the Browns (Romeo Crennel).

Kansas City struggled mightily in its transition this year. The Chiefs had Bills castoff Ron Edwards playing nose tackle and finished 30th in the NFL in yards allowed. Former No. 5 overall pick Glenn Dorsey is out of position in the 3-4 for the Chiefs. He's better suited to 4-3 tackle than 3-4 end.

On the plus side, the 3-4 is a bigger front, and the Bills need to get more physical in the AFC East, which is a smash-mouth division. Each of the top five-ranked defenses in the NFL this year in points allowed played the 3-4 scheme.

And the 3-4 gives pass protection schemes fits due to the uncertainty of which linebackers are rushing the passer.

Another potential plus: With a looming lockout in 2011, the Bills could have three drafts before playing a second season with a 3-4 front.

All things considered, I'd rather see the Bills stick with a bulked-up 4-3, using a Jeff Fisher-Gregg Williams scheme.

[phillyesq]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

I want to draft an elite OT because we don't have a single player along the o-line that is truly dominant (it is no longer a below average group, but now they are merely adequate, and we can still do better than that if we want our offense to flourish). This year looks like we finally may have the chance to get one (based on the combination of the depth of first round tackles this year and where we happen to be drafting...in the past, when we drafted early, there tended to be too few solid tackle prospects coming out that year, and when there were many quality tackle prospects we seemed to always be drafting too late to get one), even if OT is not our most pressing need in terms of looking for an immediate starter right away.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to have to play him at all as a rookie (except possibly as a tackle eligible 3rd OT in short yardage situations). I would prefer to be able to allow a rookie to sit and learn behind Starks and Colon this year and be fully ready to contribute when his time comes. You seem to judge draft picks based on what they can do for you in year one. I'm looking for guys that will help long-term and have great careers in the black and gold whether or not they are able to contribute even a lick in year one.

An OT draft pick provides much needed depth there (who plays if Starks or Colon gets hurt now? Hills? Move Essex from guard to tackle? Move Foster from guard to tackle?). Even though we are able to retain Colon with another RFA tender for 2010, what if we are unable to meet his contractual demands for a long term deal? Better to have an answer to that question now than to try to scramble for an answer if Colon wants a huge deal that we cannot afford under our cap next year when we are focused on extending Holmes and Woodley instead.

Depth at OT is much more important than depth at RB. I'm much more comfortable with Mewelde Moore backing up Mendenhall than I am with Tony Hills backing up Starks and Colon. You can get another RB a lot of ways (a cheap veteran free agent or a mid-to-late round pick) but you aren't going to be able to find a quality OT as a cheap veteran free agent or as a mid-to-late round pick. And even though Spiller is more than just your average RB because of his returning and receiving ability, we don't have a huge need for his return prowess since Logan has shown to be the best returner we've had in years, and we already don't have enough balls to go around when Ben throws to Hines, Santonio, Wallace, and Heath.

Bravo Ruthless

Just think what kind of weapon Mendy would be if we provided him with some holes to run through. For that matter Moore would do better if he had some creases to explode through ... and while I'm talking about Moore it amazes me how many on this board forget what a weapon Moore was in 2008. He carried that offense for a number of games in the middle of that season making key play after key play. The guy has been successful whenever he gets some decent playing time.

I think the offensive line improved 100% last year over the year before but they still have a long way to go. Improving the O-line is the way to getting the improved ball control offense that we are looking for. Let's improve that line and then see if we can use the weapons that we already have before we add additional weapons.

Well said by both.

The Steelers rarely draft as highly as they will this year. The two positions where a premium pick is almost essential to acquire top flight talent are QB and OT. I think a premium pick is nearly essential for a top flight CB as well. The Steelers are, obviously, set at QB. The Steelers could really benefit from a top flight CB, but the talent available this year does not match the need. Which leads to OT.

The Steelers never just look at the present; they almost always look at the big picture in the draft. Depending on how the draft shakes out, this may be their best chance to grab an OT. The last time they picked near this range, the talent on the OL wasn't there. Staley was the best available tackle, and he wasn't worth the #16 selection.

Change of pace backs with return ability can be found later in the draft. Leon Washington was a later pick. So was Darren Sproles. The Steelers have plenty of offensive weapons. Drafting an offensive skill player early just doesn't make sense.

If the Steelers see an OT that they want, then they should grab him this year. With pressure from the top of the organization to be able to run the football, and $100 million invested in a QB, an OT makes sense. Otherwise, the Steelers should focus on reloading with youth on defense.

[Oviedo]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

I want to draft an elite OT because we don't have a single player along the o-line that is truly dominant (it is no longer a below average group, but now they are merely adequate, and we can still do better than that if we want our offense to flourish). This year looks like we finally may have the chance to get one (based on the combination of the depth of first round tackles this year and where we happen to be drafting...in the past, when we drafted early, there tended to be too few solid tackle prospects coming out that year, and when there were many quality tackle prospects we seemed to always be drafting too late to get one), even if OT is not our most pressing need in terms of looking for an immediate starter right away.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to have to play him at all as a rookie (except possibly as a tackle eligible 3rd OT in short yardage situations). I would prefer to be able to allow a rookie to sit and learn behind Starks and Colon this year and be fully ready to contribute when his time comes. You seem to judge draft picks based on what they can do for you in year one. I'm looking for guys that will help long-term and have great careers in the black and gold whether or not they are able to contribute even a lick in year one.

An OT draft pick provides much needed depth there (who plays if Starks or Colon gets hurt now? Hills? Move Essex from guard to tackle? Move Foster from guard to tackle?). Even though we are able to retain Colon with another RFA tender for 2010, what if we are unable to meet his contractual demands for a long term deal? Better to have an answer to that question now than to try to scramble for an answer if Colon wants a huge deal that we cannot afford under our cap next year when we are focused on extending Holmes and Woodley instead.

Depth at OT is much more important than depth at RB. I'm much more comfortable with Mewelde Moore backing up Mendenhall than I am with Tony Hills backing up Starks and Colon. You can get another RB a lot of ways (a cheap veteran free agent or a mid-to-late round pick) but you aren't going to be able to find a quality OT as a cheap veteran free agent or as a mid-to-late round pick. And even though Spiller is more than just your average RB because of his returning and receiving ability, we don't have a huge need for his return prowess since Logan has shown to be the best returner we've had in years, and we already don't have enough balls to go around when Ben throws to Hines, Santonio, Wallace, and Heath.

Bravo Ruthless

Just think what kind of weapon Mendy would be if we provided him with some holes to run through. For that matter Moore would do better if he had some creases to explode through ... and while I'm talking about Moore it amazes me how many on this board forget what a weapon Moore was in 2008. He carried that offense for a number of games in the middle of that season making key play after key play. The guy has been successful whenever he gets some decent playing time.

I think the offensive line improved 100% last year over the year before but they still have a long way to go. Improving the O-line is the way to getting the improved ball control offense that we are looking for. Let's improve that line and then see if we can use the weapons that we already have before we add additional weapons.

Well said by both.

The Steelers rarely draft as highly as they will this year. The two positions where a premium pick is almost essential to acquire top flight talent are QB and OT. I think a premium pick is nearly essential for a top flight CB as well. The Steelers are, obviously, set at QB. The Steelers could really benefit from a top flight CB, but the talent available this year does not match the need. Which leads to OT.

The Steelers never just look at the present; they almost always look at the big picture in the draft. Depending on how the draft shakes out, this may be their best chance to grab an OT. The last time they picked near this range, the talent on the OL wasn't there. Staley was the best available tackle, and he wasn't worth the #16 selection.

Change of pace backs with return ability can be found later in the draft. Leon Washington was a later pick. So was Darren Sproles. The Steelers have plenty of offensive weapons. Drafting an offensive skill player early just doesn't make sense.

If the Steelers see an OT that they want, then they should grab him this year. With pressure from the top of the organization to be able to run the football, and $100 million invested in a QB, an OT makes sense. Otherwise, the Steelers should focus on reloading with youth on defense.

I think most of the top rated OTs come out of offenses that are spread offenses so I'm not so sure that they get you bang for your buck in the run game near term if at all. Bulaga out of Iowa may be the only one.

I'll ask the question again. Who is the "stud, superstar" OL going to replace?

[phillyesq]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

I want to draft an elite OT because we don't have a single player along the o-line that is truly dominant (it is no longer a below average group, but now they are merely adequate, and we can still do better than that if we want our offense to flourish). This year looks like we finally may have the chance to get one (based on the combination of the depth of first round tackles this year and where we happen to be drafting...in the past, when we drafted early, there tended to be too few solid tackle prospects coming out that year, and when there were many quality tackle prospects we seemed to always be drafting too late to get one), even if OT is not our most pressing need in terms of looking for an immediate starter right away.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to have to play him at all as a rookie (except possibly as a tackle eligible 3rd OT in short yardage situations). I would prefer to be able to allow a rookie to sit and learn behind Starks and Colon this year and be fully ready to contribute when his time comes. You seem to judge draft picks based on what they can do for you in year one. I'm looking for guys that will help long-term and have great careers in the black and gold whether or not they are able to contribute even a lick in year one.

An OT draft pick provides much needed depth there (who plays if Starks or Colon gets hurt now? Hills? Move Essex from guard to tackle? Move Foster from guard to tackle?). Even though we are able to retain Colon with another RFA tender for 2010, what if we are unable to meet his contractual demands for a long term deal? Better to have an answer to that question now than to try to scramble for an answer if Colon wants a huge deal that we cannot afford under our cap next year when we are focused on extending Holmes and Woodley instead.

Depth at OT is much more important than depth at RB. I'm much more comfortable with Mewelde Moore backing up Mendenhall than I am with Tony Hills backing up Starks and Colon. You can get another RB a lot of ways (a cheap veteran free agent or a mid-to-late round pick) but you aren't going to be able to find a quality OT as a cheap veteran free agent or as a mid-to-late round pick. And even though Spiller is more than just your average RB because of his returning and receiving ability, we don't have a huge need for his return prowess since Logan has shown to be the best returner we've had in years, and we already don't have enough balls to go around when Ben throws to Hines, Santonio, Wallace, and Heath.

Bravo Ruthless

Just think what kind of weapon Mendy would be if we provided him with some holes to run through. For that matter Moore would do better if he had some creases to explode through ... and while I'm talking about Moore it amazes me how many on this board forget what a weapon Moore was in 2008. He carried that offense for a number of games in the middle of that season making key play after key play. The guy has been successful whenever he gets some decent playing time.

I think the offensive line improved 100% last year over the year before but they still have a long way to go. Improving the O-line is the way to getting the improved ball control offense that we are looking for. Let's improve that line and then see if we can use the weapons that we already have before we add additional weapons.

Well said by both.

The Steelers rarely draft as highly as they will this year. The two positions where a premium pick is almost essential to acquire top flight talent are QB and OT. I think a premium pick is nearly essential for a top flight CB as well. The Steelers are, obviously, set at QB. The Steelers could really benefit from a top flight CB, but the talent available this year does not match the need. Which leads to OT.

The Steelers never just look at the present; they almost always look at the big picture in the draft. Depending on how the draft shakes out, this may be their best chance to grab an OT. The last time they picked near this range, the talent on the OL wasn't there. Staley was the best available tackle, and he wasn't worth the #16 selection.

Change of pace backs with return ability can be found later in the draft. Leon Washington was a later pick. So was Darren Sproles. The Steelers have plenty of offensive weapons. Drafting an offensive skill player early just doesn't make sense.

If the Steelers see an OT that they want, then they should grab him this year. With pressure from the top of the organization to be able to run the football, and $100 million invested in a QB, an OT makes sense. Otherwise, the Steelers should focus on reloading with youth on defense.

I think most of the top rated OTs come out of offenses that are spread offenses so I'm not so sure that they get you bang for your buck in the run game near term if at all. Bulaga out of Iowa may be the only one.

I'll ask the question again. Who is the "stud, superstar" OL going to replace?

Starks is adequate and replaceable. There is always the debate about whether Colon will find his way to guard. He also has the uncertain contract status.

In the short term, I'd actually rather replace Hartwig or Essex. But long term, finding a stud OT, if there is one out there, may be the best value, IMO.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

I would have bold-faced and underlined the following sentences instead.

Good background read whatever side of the argument you are on. Identifies the challenges of stocking the 3-4 with talent

Inside the NFL: Upgrading 4-3 defense easier than switching to 3-4
By Mark Gaughan
NEWS NFL COLUMNIST
Updated: January 30, 2010, 10:59 pm /
Published: January 24, 2010, 12:09 am
Buffalo Bills fans should be apprehensive about a move to a 3-4 defense. It's a hard transition to go from a Tony Dungy-style 4-3 defense to a 3-4 scheme.

The biggest difficulty is it's hard to find an elite nose tackle to clog the middle. The 3-4 also ideally puts big men — 285 pounds and up — at defensive end. If they're 295 pounds, even better. The inside linebackers should be in the 240-pound range. The outside linebackers should be athletic guys in the 255- to 265-pound range.

One could argue that it's a bit easier to find outside linebackers at 255 pounds who can rush the passer than to find elite defensive ends at 270 who can rush the passer.

Nevertheless, in the 4-3 defense, there's more wiggle room in terms of the prototypes on the defensive line and at linebacker.

This year 13 teams played the 3-4 as their base defense. Washington is considering shifting to it with Jim Haslett as the new defensive chief. He has coached both the 3-4 and 4-3 in his career.

Three teams in recent years have cycled through a head coach in the process of switching from the 4-3 to the 3-4. They were the Jets (Eric Mangini), the 49ers (Mike Nolan) and the Browns (Romeo Crennel).

Kansas City struggled mightily in its transition this year. The Chiefs had Bills castoff Ron Edwards playing nose tackle and finished 30th in the NFL in yards allowed. Former No. 5 overall pick Glenn Dorsey is out of position in the 3-4 for the Chiefs. He's better suited to 4-3 tackle than 3-4 end.

On the plus side, the 3-4 is a bigger front, and the Bills need to get more physical in the AFC East, which is a smash-mouth division. Each of the top five-ranked defenses in the NFL this year in points allowed played the 3-4 scheme.

And the 3-4 gives pass protection schemes fits due to the uncertainty of which linebackers are rushing the passer.

Another potential plus: With a looming lockout in 2011, the Bills could have three drafts before playing a second season with a 3-4 front.

All things considered, I'd rather see the Bills stick with a bulked-up 4-3, using a Jeff Fisher-Gregg Williams scheme.

The author here describes how difficult it is to switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4, which is true. But we aren't switching. We are re-loading. And we have several decades of experience knowing what types of players to draft for the 3-4, which gives us an advantage over the Johnny-Come-Latelies that are trying to draft talent for the 3-4 for the first time.

[StarSpangledSteeler]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

I want to draft an elite OT because we don't have a single player along the o-line that is truly dominant (it is no longer a below average group, but now they are merely adequate, and we can still do better than that if we want our offense to flourish). This year looks like we finally may have the chance to get one (based on the combination of the depth of first round tackles this year and where we happen to be drafting...in the past, when we drafted early, there tended to be too few solid tackle prospects coming out that year, and when there were many quality tackle prospects we seemed to always be drafting too late to get one), even if OT is not our most pressing need in terms of looking for an immediate starter right away.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to have to play him at all as a rookie (except possibly as a tackle eligible 3rd OT in short yardage situations). I would prefer to be able to allow a rookie to sit and learn behind Starks and Colon this year and be fully ready to contribute when his time comes. You seem to judge draft picks based on what they can do for you in year one. I'm looking for guys that will help long-term and have great careers in the black and gold whether or not they are able to contribute even a lick in year one.

An OT draft pick provides much needed depth there (who plays if Starks or Colon gets hurt now? Hills? Move Essex from guard to tackle? Move Foster from guard to tackle?). Even though we are able to retain Colon with another RFA tender for 2010, what if we are unable to meet his contractual demands for a long term deal? Better to have an answer to that question now than to try to scramble for an answer if Colon wants a huge deal that we cannot afford under our cap next year when we are focused on extending Holmes and Woodley instead.

Depth at OT is much more important than depth at RB. I'm much more comfortable with Mewelde Moore backing up Mendenhall than I am with Tony Hills backing up Starks and Colon. You can get another RB a lot of ways (a cheap veteran free agent or a mid-to-late round pick) but you aren't going to be able to find a quality OT as a cheap veteran free agent or as a mid-to-late round pick. And even though Spiller is more than just your average RB because of his returning and receiving ability, we don't have a huge need for his return prowess since Logan has shown to be the best returner we've had in years, and we already don't have enough balls to go around when Ben throws to Hines, Santonio, Wallace, and Heath.

Bravo Ruthless

Just think what kind of weapon Mendy would be if we provided him with some holes to run through. For that matter Moore would do better if he had some creases to explode through ... and while I'm talking about Moore it amazes me how many on this board forget what a weapon Moore was in 2008. He carried that offense for a number of games in the middle of that season making key play after key play. The guy has been successful whenever he gets some decent playing time.

I think the offensive line improved 100% last year over the year before but they still have a long way to go. Improving the O-line is the way to getting the improved ball control offense that we are looking for. Let's improve that line and then see if we can use the weapons that we already have before we add additional weapons.

Well said by both.

The Steelers rarely draft as highly as they will this year. The two positions where a premium pick is almost essential to acquire top flight talent are QB and OT. I think a premium pick is nearly essential for a top flight CB as well. The Steelers are, obviously, set at QB. The Steelers could really benefit from a top flight CB, but the talent available this year does not match the need. Which leads to OT.

The Steelers never just look at the present; they almost always look at the big picture in the draft. Depending on how the draft shakes out, this may be their best chance to grab an OT. The last time they picked near this range, the talent on the OL wasn't there. Staley was the best available tackle, and he wasn't worth the #16 selection.

Change of pace backs with return ability can be found later in the draft. Leon Washington was a later pick. So was Darren Sproles. The Steelers have plenty of offensive weapons. Drafting an offensive skill player early just doesn't make sense.

If the Steelers see an OT that they want, then they should grab him this year. With pressure from the top of the organization to be able to run the football, and $100 million invested in a QB, an OT makes sense. Otherwise, the Steelers should focus on reloading with youth on defense.

I think most of the top rated OTs come out of offenses that are spread offenses so I'm not so sure that they get you bang for your buck in the run game near term if at all. Bulaga out of Iowa may be the only one.

I'll ask the question again. Who is the "stud, superstar" OL going to replace?

Oveido-

It's a fair question. One could argue, we have immediate need at CB and FS, and the following year need at NT and ILB. Why would you overlook those needs to draft a OT when you already have young-ish entrenched starters at both tackle positions? Right?

1) The first answer is... 'talent'. We don't have a pro-bowl starter entrenched at LT. We have an entrenched starter at LT who sucks a$$ (bordering on sucks ball$). If you disagree with that assessment, it's okay, but just realize THAT is the issue at hand. That is the point we 'pro-left-tackle-drafting-people' are debating here. Starks gets beat all the time by speed rushers. Two years ago, Mario Williams separated Ben's shoulder because Starks couldn't hold him off for more than two seconds. That is not acceptable. If a CB gets beat we give up six points. If our LT gets beat we potentially give up our franchise. I don't care if Starks is under contract or not, his feet are still too slow for the left side. The problem is we have nobody to replace him because we keep drafting late round projects. Remember we were forced to franchise Starks for two straight years for an insane amount of money. Why? Because we had no other 'talented' option. If we had drafted Luke Staley for example, Starks would not be playing left tackle for us right now and that money could've been spent elsewhere.

1) The second answer is... 'value'. It's the same reason we drafted Big Ben when we already had a healthy entrenched starter at QB. We don't pick #18 very often. We need a player at 18 that we can't get at 27, 32, etc. You just don't get dominate LT's in the 2-4 rounds. They don't 'sneak' by anymore. You can get a great safety in round 2, a great LB in round 2, a great NT in round 2. That rarely happens with LT. (Now CB is getting very similar to LT, but beyond Haden I don't see any CB worth the value of 18.) People use the term BPA but it's more than that. It's the BPA at a position that you can't get value in later rounds.

3) The third answer is... 'depth'. Is it possible Starks could get hurt for one or two games this year? If/when he does, who would you plug in? Who on our roster is going to protect Big Ben against the dominant RDE speed rushers in our conference? If a LB goes down, at least we have Fox. If Hampton goes down, at least we have Hoke/Hood. If Starks goes down we have... Hills?

[Oviedo]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

I want to draft an elite OT because we don't have a single player along the o-line that is truly dominant (it is no longer a below average group, but now they are merely adequate, and we can still do better than that if we want our offense to flourish). This year looks like we finally may have the chance to get one (based on the combination of the depth of first round tackles this year and where we happen to be drafting...in the past, when we drafted early, there tended to be too few solid tackle prospects coming out that year, and when there were many quality tackle prospects we seemed to always be drafting too late to get one), even if OT is not our most pressing need in terms of looking for an immediate starter right away.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to have to play him at all as a rookie (except possibly as a tackle eligible 3rd OT in short yardage situations). I would prefer to be able to allow a rookie to sit and learn behind Starks and Colon this year and be fully ready to contribute when his time comes. You seem to judge draft picks based on what they can do for you in year one. I'm looking for guys that will help long-term and have great careers in the black and gold whether or not they are able to contribute even a lick in year one.

An OT draft pick provides much needed depth there (who plays if Starks or Colon gets hurt now? Hills? Move Essex from guard to tackle? Move Foster from guard to tackle?). Even though we are able to retain Colon with another RFA tender for 2010, what if we are unable to meet his contractual demands for a long term deal? Better to have an answer to that question now than to try to scramble for an answer if Colon wants a huge deal that we cannot afford under our cap next year when we are focused on extending Holmes and Woodley instead.

Depth at OT is much more important than depth at RB. I'm much more comfortable with Mewelde Moore backing up Mendenhall than I am with Tony Hills backing up Starks and Colon. You can get another RB a lot of ways (a cheap veteran free agent or a mid-to-late round pick) but you aren't going to be able to find a quality OT as a cheap veteran free agent or as a mid-to-late round pick. And even though Spiller is more than just your average RB because of his returning and receiving ability, we don't have a huge need for his return prowess since Logan has shown to be the best returner we've had in years, and we already don't have enough balls to go around when Ben throws to Hines, Santonio, Wallace, and Heath.

Bravo Ruthless

Just think what kind of weapon Mendy would be if we provided him with some holes to run through. For that matter Moore would do better if he had some creases to explode through ... and while I'm talking about Moore it amazes me how many on this board forget what a weapon Moore was in 2008. He carried that offense for a number of games in the middle of that season making key play after key play. The guy has been successful whenever he gets some decent playing time.

I think the offensive line improved 100% last year over the year before but they still have a long way to go. Improving the O-line is the way to getting the improved ball control offense that we are looking for. Let's improve that line and then see if we can use the weapons that we already have before we add additional weapons.

Well said by both.

The Steelers rarely draft as highly as they will this year. The two positions where a premium pick is almost essential to acquire top flight talent are QB and OT. I think a premium pick is nearly essential for a top flight CB as well. The Steelers are, obviously, set at QB. The Steelers could really benefit from a top flight CB, but the talent available this year does not match the need. Which leads to OT.

The Steelers never just look at the present; they almost always look at the big picture in the draft. Depending on how the draft shakes out, this may be their best chance to grab an OT. The last time they picked near this range, the talent on the OL wasn't there. Staley was the best available tackle, and he wasn't worth the #16 selection.

Change of pace backs with return ability can be found later in the draft. Leon Washington was a later pick. So was Darren Sproles. The Steelers have plenty of offensive weapons. Drafting an offensive skill player early just doesn't make sense.

If the Steelers see an OT that they want, then they should grab him this year. With pressure from the top of the organization to be able to run the football, and $100 million invested in a QB, an OT makes sense. Otherwise, the Steelers should focus on reloading with youth on defense.

I think most of the top rated OTs come out of offenses that are spread offenses so I'm not so sure that they get you bang for your buck in the run game near term if at all. Bulaga out of Iowa may be the only one.

I'll ask the question again. Who is the "stud, superstar" OL going to replace?

Oveido-

It's a fair question. One could argue, we have immediate need at CB and FS, and the following year need at NT and ILB. Why would you overlook those needs to draft a OT when you already have young-ish entrenched starters at both tackle positions? Right?

1) The first answer is... 'talent'. We don't have a pro-bowl starter entrenched at LT. We have an entrenched starter at LT who sucks a$$ (bordering on sucks ball$). If you disagree with that assessment, it's okay, but just realize THAT is the issue at hand. That is the point we 'pro-left-tackle-drafting-people' are debating here. Starks gets beat all the time by speed rushers. Two years ago, Mario Williams separated Ben's shoulder because Starks couldn't hold him off for more than two seconds. That is not acceptable. If a CB gets beat we give up six points. If our LT gets beat we potentially give up our franchise. I don't care if Starks is under contract or not, his feet are still too slow for the left side. The problem is we have nobody to replace him because we keep drafting late round projects. Remember we were forced to franchise Starks for two straight years for an insane amount of money. Why? Because we had no other 'talented' option. If we had drafted Luke Staley for example, Starks would not be playing left tackle for us right now and that money could've been spent elsewhere.

1) The second answer is... 'value'. It's the same reason we drafted Big Ben when we already had a healthy entrenched starter at QB. We don't pick #18 very often. We need a player at 18 that we can't get at 27, 32, etc. You just don't get dominate LT's in the 2-4 rounds. They don't 'sneak' by anymore. You can get a great safety in round 2, a great LB in round 2, a great NT in round 2. That rarely happens with LT. (Now CB is getting very similar to LT, but beyond Haden I don't see any CB worth the value of 18.) People use the term BPA but it's more than that. It's the BPA at a position that you can't get value in later rounds.

3) The third answer is... 'depth'. Is it possible Starks could get hurt for one or two games this year? If/when he does, who would you plug in? Who on our roster is going to protect Big Ben against the dominant RDE speed rushers in our conference? If a LB goes down, at least we have Fox. If Hampton goes down, at least we have Hoke/Hood. If Starks goes down we have... Hills?

We can agree to disagree. The front office and the coaching staff have never shared the same level of gloom and doom with regards to the OL that members of this board do. I don't see that changing just when the OL has played better than they have in a couple of years. The new OL coach will be given a year to come in and assess what he has and IMO they will want to see what he can do with the current talent before they commit premium draft picks to the OL especially since they just signed Starks and Kemo to long term contracts and they always talk about wanting to keep Colon.

So just like the past four years everyone can hope to get OL in Round 1 and raise heck when it doesn't happen. The reality is the more you read the more you start to see the warts on the OL rated in the first round. Okung is solid and by far the best, Bulaga developed a Thyroid condition in 2009, Trent Williams is pretty solid but is only a RT, Anthony Davis has been criticized for poor work ethic and has had trouble maintaining a decent weight, Iupati has been criticized for academics and could be a slow learner like Kemo.

In summary, all these guys have warts and to think they will be able to step in for anyone on our OL who have several years of game experience is not realistic. But hey I'm not a professional talent evaluator like you guys I'm just analytical and logical.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

Bravo Ruthless

Just think what kind of weapon Mendy would be if we provided him with some holes to run through. For that matter Moore would do better if he had some creases to explode through ... and while I'm talking about Moore it amazes me how many on this board forget what a weapon Moore was in 2008. He carried that offense for a number of games in the middle of that season making key play after key play. The guy has been successful whenever he gets some decent playing time.

I think the offensive line improved 100% last year over the year before but they still have a long way to go. Improving the O-line is the way to getting the improved ball control offense that we are looking for. Let's improve that line and then see if we can use the weapons that we already have before we add additional weapons.

Well said by both.

The Steelers rarely draft as highly as they will this year. The two positions where a premium pick is almost essential to acquire top flight talent are QB and OT. I think a premium pick is nearly essential for a top flight CB as well. The Steelers are, obviously, set at QB. The Steelers could really benefit from a top flight CB, but the talent available this year does not match the need. Which leads to OT.

The Steelers never just look at the present; they almost always look at the big picture in the draft. Depending on how the draft shakes out, this may be their best chance to grab an OT. The last time they picked near this range, the talent on the OL wasn't there. Staley was the best available tackle, and he wasn't worth the #16 selection.

Change of pace backs with return ability can be found later in the draft. Leon Washington was a later pick. So was Darren Sproles. The Steelers have plenty of offensive weapons. Drafting an offensive skill player early just doesn't make sense.

If the Steelers see an OT that they want, then they should grab him this year. With pressure from the top of the organization to be able to run the football, and $100 million invested in a QB, an OT makes sense. Otherwise, the Steelers should focus on reloading with youth on defense.

I think most of the top rated OTs come out of offenses that are spread offenses so I'm not so sure that they get you bang for your buck in the run game near term if at all. Bulaga out of Iowa may be the only one.

I'll ask the question again. Who is the "stud, superstar" OL going to replace?

Oveido-

It's a fair question. One could argue, we have immediate need at CB and FS, and the following year need at NT and ILB. Why would you overlook those needs to draft a OT when you already have young-ish entrenched starters at both tackle positions? Right?

1) The first answer is... 'talent'. We don't have a pro-bowl starter entrenched at LT. We have an entrenched starter at LT who sucks a$$ (bordering on sucks ball$). If you disagree with that assessment, it's okay, but just realize THAT is the issue at hand. That is the point we 'pro-left-tackle-drafting-people' are debating here. Starks gets beat all the time by speed rushers. Two years ago, Mario Williams separated Ben's shoulder because Starks couldn't hold him off for more than two seconds. That is not acceptable. If a CB gets beat we give up six points. If our LT gets beat we potentially give up our franchise. I don't care if Starks is under contract or not, his feet are still too slow for the left side. The problem is we have nobody to replace him because we keep drafting late round projects. Remember we were forced to franchise Starks for two straight years for an insane amount of money. Why? Because we had no other 'talented' option. If we had drafted Luke Staley for example, Starks would not be playing left tackle for us right now and that money could've been spent elsewhere.

1) The second answer is... 'value'. It's the same reason we drafted Big Ben when we already had a healthy entrenched starter at QB. We don't pick #18 very often. We need a player at 18 that we can't get at 27, 32, etc. You just don't get dominate LT's in the 2-4 rounds. They don't 'sneak' by anymore. You can get a great safety in round 2, a great LB in round 2, a great NT in round 2. That rarely happens with LT. (Now CB is getting very similar to LT, but beyond Haden I don't see any CB worth the value of 18.) People use the term BPA but it's more than that. It's the BPA at a position that you can't get value in later rounds.

3) The third answer is... 'depth'. Is it possible Starks could get hurt for one or two games this year? If/when he does, who would you plug in? Who on our roster is going to protect Big Ben against the dominant RDE speed rushers in our conference? If a LB goes down, at least we have Fox. If Hampton goes down, at least we have Hoke/Hood. If Starks goes down we have... Hills?

We can agree to disagree. The front office and the coaching staff have never shared the same level of gloom and doom with regards to the OL that members of this board do. I don't see that changing just when the OL has played better than they have in a couple of years. The new OL coach will be given a year to come in and assess what he has and IMO they will want to see what he can do with the current talent before they commit premium draft picks to the OL especially since they just signed Starks and Kemo to long term contracts and they always talk about wanting to keep Colon.

So just like the past four years everyone can hope to get OL in Round 1 and raise heck when it doesn't happen. The reality is the more you read the more you start to see the warts on the OL rated in the first round. Okung is solid and by far the best, Bulaga developed a Thyroid condition in 2009, Trent Williams is pretty solid but is only a RT, Anthony Davis has been criticized for poor work ethic and has had trouble maintaining a decent weight, Iupati has been criticized for academics and could be a slow learner like Kemo.

In summary, all these guys have warts and to think they will be able to step in for anyone on our OL who have several years of game experience is not realistic. But hey I'm not a professional talent evaluator like you guys

The point of drafting an o-lineman early this year is not to have them step in for anyone on our line this year. It's an investment for the future (like all of our draft picks should be). I don't go crazy when a rookie does not play in year one and everyone calls him a bust because of it. Worrying about where a rookie will fit in during his first year is short-sighted. Allowing the rookie to learn the system and adapt to the pro game without the pressure of starting right off the bat is the ideal scenario. You don't want to have to throw a green rookie to the wolves from day one...you want them to be able to adjust and learn so that they will be ready when they are eventually inserted into the lineup.

I like years when someone like Patrick Bailey is named our rookie of the year, because that means we did not have a rash of injuries or incompetence that forced us to have to insert a rookie into the lineup early. Ideally, rookies should only be backup players and special teamers during year one. It's not just LeBeau's defense in which rookies don't see the field often. Ben only started as a rookie because Maddox and Batch were both hurt. Wallace got a lot of playing time as a rookie because Sweed fell on his face again (in September, Limas got more P.T. than Wallace, but after dropping another sure TD against Cincy, then Wallace started getting more P.T. from October on). I don't have a problem with holding rookies back and letting them marinate a bit. Realistically, last year's draft class (Hood, Urbik, Wallace, Lewis, Burnett, etc.) should have more of an impact on the 2010 season than the guys we draft two months from now will, because they have a year's worth of experience under their belts and should improve now that they have had some time to adjust to life in the NFL. I am not worried about trying to find the rookie who will have the most impact in year one. Not at all.

[phillyesq]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

I tried to post this a few times, but it appears that the string became to long to continue quoting.

I'm with Ruthless on waiting for draft picks. I have no problem with waiting for rookies to contribute. I know we've all had this debate back and forth, but I certainly think that Troy was worth the wait.

Oviedo, I'm not advocating for a OT if one is available because I'm down on our current group. They were average last year, but realistically, what kind of ceiling do they have beyond average? I haven't looked into this year's draft prospects enough to advocate for or against a certain guy. But if there is somebody that Colbert and the FO can be a pro bowl caliber OT, then I'm all for the Steelers grabbing him.

If the Steelers end up with a potentially great OT, I'll be pleased. If they determine that they want to address their needs on defense, I'll be equally pleased. If they draft a running back/return guy at 18, I'll probably be in the market for a new tv.

[Chadman]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

Personally, Chadman would be surprised to see the Steelers draft an OT in Round 1.

As has been discussed, Max Starks is under contract, long term, to play LT. Regardless of how WE view Starks' play, the FO obviously think it's worthy of a big chunk of change & some long term security. 1 option put forward is that a drafted LT will make Starks slide over to RT (over paid as a RT, but by-the-by), which will in turn move...

Willie Colon to RG. Again, doubt this will happen- firstly, Colon has consistantly graded well for the Steelers coaches. Again, OUR belief that Colon isn't great, doesn't seem to match the coaching staff's version of events. Secondly, people put forward Colon's impending FA status- that'd be RFA status for those that want the full details. Colon has said he wants to stay, the coaches have been happy with his play- does anyone REALLY think they'll let Colon go? Thirdly, moving Colon to the position WE believe he is better suited to, RG, means that the FO has effectively given up on...


Kraig Urbik, who was drafted in the 3rd round last season. 3rd round, being the highest Draft round selection of all Steelers current OL players. Anyone think the steelers have put a line through Urbik yet? No, not Chadman either. And it's not like Urbik will move to LG, where Kemo has signed long term. So Urbik is effectively the RG of the future, meaning that any Willie Colon signing is, effectively, for the future at RT.

the only position with a real possibility of availability in the near future is Center, even though Hartwig signed a 3 year deal last season. Of course, with Urbik scheduled for the RG position, Darnnell Stapleton could be viewed as the long term Center too.

So, taking into account the most of the OL positions are, in the FO's mind you would think, alloted for the long term- picking a 1st round OL means effectively that the FO has decided to-
a. Write off as a loss, the $25 odd million they owe to Max Starks.

b. Write off lasts season's 3rd round investment in Kraig Urbik.

c. admit they have lied for 3 years about how they feel about Willie Colon.

d. Invest millions into a reserve player for the next 4 years or so.

Which of these seems the likely option?

Should Chadman offer another?

How about, the Steelers DON'T invest in a 1st round OL player, and instead look to upgrade the Tony Hill's of the roster with say, a 3rd or 4th round OL player this season?

[Steel Life]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

Regarding both sides of the argument, its clear that there are a disparity of opinions as to whats needed - especially on the offensive line - but in reality, there are only two positions of real "need" on the team - NT & Center. The fact is that the team has a number of players on the offensive line who have become a solid starting unit with contributions from what is serviceable depth, with some quality developmental prospects in Legursky, Foster & Urbik.

But at the Center & NT spots, we have at best two aging veterans for 2 to 3 more years & at worst one year solutions at each position. Hartwig is a stop-gap player & possibly the weak link of the line & Hampton is a short-timer due to age & salary. This is why I've said in other threads that aside from getting a starting-caliber NT, that Maurkice Pouncey is the preeminent player of "need" by the Steelers as the rest of the options are sub-standard, whereas the NT options in the draft are plentiful with attractive options from the 1st thru 4th rounds.

My hope is the Steelers get Dan Williams in the 1st & then make a move to get Pouncey in the 2nd. But if they decide to forgo a NT in the 1st, say choosing Weatherspoon instead, I'd still move to get Pouncey in the 2nd & then get the NT in round 3 like Cam Thomas or Troupe. This isn't to say that we shouldn't continue to stockpile talent at other positions of both lines, but as in baseball...the true strength of a team is measured from the middle out.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

Regarding both sides of the argument, its clear that there are a disparity of opinions as to whats needed - especially on the offensive line - but in reality, there are only two positions of real "need" on the team - NT & Center. The fact is that the team has a number of players on the offensive line who have become a solid starting unit with contributions from what is serviceable depth, with some quality developmental prospects in Legursky, Foster & Urbik.

But at the Center & NT spots, we have at best two aging veterans for 2 to 3 more years & at worst one year solutions at each position. Hartwig is a stop-gap player & possibly the weak link of the line & Hampton is a short-timer due to age & salary. This is why I've said in other threads that aside from getting a starting-caliber NT, that Maurkice Pouncey is the preeminent player of "need" by the Steelers as the rest of the options are sub-standard, whereas the NT options in the draft are plentiful with attractive options from the 1st thru 4th rounds.

My hope is the Steelers get Dan Williams in the 1st & then make a move to get Pouncey in the 2nd. But if they decide to forgo a NT in the 1st, say choosing Weatherspoon instead, I'd still move to get Pouncey in the 2nd & then get the NT in round 3 like Cam Thomas or Troupe. This isn't to say that we shouldn't continue to stockpile talent at other positions of both lines, but as in baseball...the true strength of a team is measured from the middle out.

For what it is worth...in order to move up in the second round...if we gave up our 4th round pick, we should be able to move up about 7 spots in the second round (13th pick of the 2nd round, currently held by Denver). If we gave up our 3rd round pick, we should be able to move up about 18 spots (2nd pick of the 2nd round, currently held by Detroit).

[Oviedo]

Re: Origins of 3-4, 4-3 and Draft Dlinemen analysis

Regarding both sides of the argument, its clear that there are a disparity of opinions as to whats needed - especially on the offensive line - but in reality, there are only two positions of real "need" on the team - NT & Center. The fact is that the team has a number of players on the offensive line who have become a solid starting unit with contributions from what is serviceable depth, with some quality developmental prospects in Legursky, Foster & Urbik.

But at the Center & NT spots, we have at best two aging veterans for 2 to 3 more years & at worst one year solutions at each position. Hartwig is a stop-gap player & possibly the weak link of the line & Hampton is a short-timer due to age & salary. This is why I've said in other threads that aside from getting a starting-caliber NT, that Maurkice Pouncey is the preeminent player of "need" by the Steelers as the rest of the options are sub-standard, whereas the NT options in the draft are plentiful with attractive options from the 1st thru 4th rounds.

My hope is the Steelers get Dan Williams in the 1st & then make a move to get Pouncey in the 2nd. But if they decide to forgo a NT in the 1st, say choosing Weatherspoon instead, I'd still move to get Pouncey in the 2nd & then get the NT in round 3 like Cam Thomas or Troupe. This isn't to say that we shouldn't continue to stockpile talent at other positions of both lines, but as in baseball...the true strength of a team is measured from the middle out.

I agree with your assessemnt of the OL which is why I think Kugler will get a year to work with the guys he has versus spending a premium pick on OL. I think both the FO and Tomlin want to see what he can do with players there now before adding more into the mix.

I will caution everyone though about Pouncey. He may be the highest rated Center this year but this is a weak year depth wise for Centers...just the opposite of last year. You need to also watch how he played in Florida's offense. He did lots of non traditional Center stuff and rarely snapped a ball with a QB right behind him because Tebow was in the shotgun 99% of the time. Florida also did not have a inside power run game and did alot of running off tackle which did not require the Center to drive block against big DT/NT.

As far as NT, my pick is Torrell Troup in Round 3. Cam Thomas will probably rise into Round 2.