Defense wins championships...well Pass Rush does

[RayClay]

You've been drinking, haven't you?

You can't make a point, can you? You think our LB situation is and has been as good as Pittsburgh, right?

I don't drink, nor do I do hallucinogens, which would be required to think we have two first rounders at ILB and a possible 27.5 sacks from our OLBs.

We've drafted one starting linebacker in 8 years. Two of the three we acquired are gone. We need 4.

 

[Deus Irae]

You can't make a point, can you? You think our LB situation is and has been as good as Pittsburgh, right?

I made the point. You made a bad argument and I showed it to be wrong. You then went off about players from 2002 and before. You followed that up by complaining when I brought up Ted Johnson in a post that wasn't even addressed to you, even though his situation didn't develop until well AFTER that date.

Furthermore, there's a difference between saying that the Steelers are more "good" at LB and the argument you've been making. You must know this.

 

[RayClay]

You're bringing up Bell, Farrior, Porter and the like. Please don't go there about Johnson. I'm beginning to question your sobriety/mental state at this point already.

Bell, Farrior and Porter provided the tough competition draft picks and FAs like Harrison had to compete with. That was my only point. Pitt spends resources to acquire talent.

We had great competition had we developed it during Johnson's 9th and 10th years in the league. We didn't, unless you think Matt Chatham was a possible starter.

You were shocked Johnson retired. I wasn't. The timing was bad, but that's why you prepare, isn't it? Let's face it, Bruschi looked likely to retire, but didn't.

 

[mayoclinic]

Now be fair and list our draft picks at linebacker. You are actually making my point. Pittsburgh isn't luckier or smarter, they put more resources into it, therefore have more competition.

Again, you mention two linebackers left in 8 years. We start four. I'm not counting colvin because he doesn't even want to play anymore (or much less, in his case)

See post #30 in this thread above, where I detail our picks and signings since 2003.

Pittsburgh has drafted (or signed as UDFA) more LBs than the Pats since 2001, no doubt about it. The Pats have signed more FAs, some good (Vrabel, Colvin, Thomas and Seau) and some not so great (Brown, Beisel, Hobson). Pittsburgh's only major FA signing was Farrior, who has been terrific for them.

I am being fair, I think. I said in my earlier post (#30) that I thought BB had just missed on some good players (Tatupu, Bradley) but had also made some possible mistakes in passing up on others (Dansby being the most obvious; it's too early to tell how the players he passed up in the most recent draft will turn out). We have been far from perfect in the LB arena, and I think BB's biggest justifiable criticism is that he waited a bit too long before rebuilding the position; but he has made some efforts, and we have had some unfortunate injuries and unexpected events (the timing of Johnson's retirement, Bruschi's stroke). Pittsburgh has been far from perfect too, but has a bit more to show for their efforts, mainly because of striking gold with Harrison. Woodley has developed beautifully so far. Farrior is aging, I'm not convinced Timmons will be more than solid, and they have little depth at ILB. They clearly deserve a lot of credit for knowing what players fit well within their system, and I think **** LeBeau deserves enormous credit.

I think BB got caught by being a bit too loyal to his veterans and dragged his heels a bit in terms of rebuilding the LB corps. As a result, age, injuries and lack of speed caught up with us in 2006-2007. But he invested a lot of resources in the position in the last few years: Thomas, Mayo, Woods, Crable, Redd and Guyton all have 2 or less seasons of experience behind them (Woods was drafted in 2006 but played exclusively on ST his first year). Again, I was hoping for a day 1 LB this year or a major trade/FA signing; but if BB thinks those guys are developing and is willing to go with them, then I say we need to give them a chance.

 

[RayClay]

I made the point. You made a bad argument and I showed it to be wrong.

Furthermore, there's a difference between saying that the Steelers are more "good" at LB and the argument you've been making. You must know this.

My argument is the Steelers stock the LB position and we don't. They make bad picks etc. but they usually have a good corps.

You never came close to proving me wrong which is why you start making silly attacks, because you won't admit you're wrong.

There are lots of reasons and excuses why the Patriots got old and didn't restock. I don't believe in putting excuses in uniforms on Sunday.

 

[patsfan-1982]

i think it's not far to say if the steelers can draft LB why cant we the steelers have been drafting better LB then all 31 teams over the last 20 years or more maybe its there system maybe its luck who know's why the steelers all so waited 30 year's to get a real starting QB we drafted 2 in the 6th and 7th round of the draft

 

[Deus Irae]

Bell, Farrior and Porter provided the tough competition draft picks and FAs like Harrison had to compete with. That was my only point. Pitt spends resources to acquire talent.

We had great competition had we developed it during Johnson's 9th and 10th years in the league. We didn't, unless you think Matt Chatham was a possible starter.

You were shocked Johnson retired. I wasn't. The timing was bad, but that's why you prepare, isn't it? Let's face it, Bruschi looked likely to retire, but didn't.

Ok, now what the hell are you talking about? You're rambling about like a crazy man.

2004:

Vrabel
Bruschi
McGinest
Phifer
Colvin (hip injury the year before)

The 2005 season saw Johnson retire AND Bruschi stroke. It was a 1-2 punch that, no matter how you try to claim otherwise, was unforeseen by anyone on planet earth not gifted with precognition. The team, under the gun because of Johnson, had to use Beisel and Brown as starters rather than situational players.

2006 saw the team bring Seau into the fold and 2007 yielded Thomas. 2008 saw them draft the DROY, Mayo. Since you point to the Steelers and the 2007 draft, perhaps you can note where Timmons was drafted compared to where the Patriots were picking, and perhaps you'll recall that there was an actual need for a safety to be picked when the team grabbed B. Meriweather. The Steelers 2005 LB draft pick never started a game for them and was gone in 2 seasons, and their 2003 pick has been out of the league since 2005 having started one game in his entire career, as a member of the Giants. Your Steelers argument is a sieve.

 

[Deus Irae]

My argument is the Steelers stock the LB position and we don't. They make bad picks etc. but they usually have a good corps.

You never came close to proving me wrong which is why you start making silly attacks, because you won't admit you're wrong.

There are lots of reasons and excuses why the Patriots got old and didn't restock. I don't believe in putting excuses in uniforms on Sunday.

This was NOT your argument. I did prove you wrong, repeatedly. This is becoming a waste of time because you're moving the goalposts as well as denying the blatantly obvious.

 

[RayClay]

See post #30 in this thread above, where I detail our picks and signings since 2003.

Pittsburgh has drafted (or signed as UDFA) more LBs than the Pats since 2001, no doubt about it. The Pats have signed more FAs, some good (Vrabel, Colvin, Thomas and Seau) and some not so great (Brown, Beisel, Hobson). Pittsburgh's only major FA signing was Farrior, who has been terrific for them.

I am being fair, I think. I said in my earlier post (#30) that I thought BB had just missed on some good players (Tatupu, Bradley) but had also made some possible mistakes in passing up on others (Dansby being the most obvious; it's too early to tell how the players he passed up in the most recent draft will turn out). We have been far from perfect in the LB arena, and I think BB's biggest justifiable criticism is that he waited a bit too long before rebuilding the position; but he has made some efforts, and we have had some unfortunate injuries and unexpected events (the timing of Johnson's retirement, Bruschi's stroke). Pittsburgh has been far from perfect too, but has a bit more to show for their efforts, mainly because of striking gold with Harrison. Woodley has developed beautifully so far. Farrior is aging, I'm not convinced Timmons will be more than solid, and they have little depth at ILB. They clearly deserve a lot of credit for knowing what players fit well within their system, and I think **** LeBeau deserves enormous credit.

I think BB got caught by being a bit too loyal to his veterans and dragged his heels a bit in terms of rebuilding the LB corps. As a result, age, injuries and lack of speed caught up with us in 2006-2007. But he invested a lot of resources in the position in the last few years: Thomas, Mayo, Woods, Crable, Redd and Guyton all have 2 or less seasons of experience behind them (Woods was drafted in 2006 but played exclusively on ST his first year). Again, I was hoping for a day 1 LB this year or a major trade/FA signing; but if BB thinks those guys are developing and is willing to go with them, then I say we need to give them a chance.

Look, the Patriots signed Colvin, he was hurt a lot. It Happens. They got a great deal with Vrabel. They had four old linebackers to replace. I don't know what it is you want me to read, there simply isn't any reason needed why 5,6,and 7th round picks don't make it. If you get a starter ther you're beating the odds.

Thomas is good, I hope because he's in danger of getting old before his position mates get settled.

There's no need pf massaging the Pittsburgh comment, it's just common sense. If i spend time and money on my lawn, it'll probably be nicer than my neighbor who doesn't. We are depending, not hoping, depending on 3 undrafted free agents a second year player and a free agent who has been injured a bit and hopefully can train 3 other guys. And Bruschi. Maybe he'll get a second wind.

And a third rounder who was a helthy scratch, then IR'd.

Anybody that is enthusiastic about that, good luck to you.

 

[RayClay]

This was NOT your argument. I did prove you wrong, repeatedly. This is becoming a waste of time because you're moving the goalposts as well as denying the blatantly obvious.

Tell you what. You can make my argument and argue against it. I hope you win.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tell you what. You can make my argument and argue against it. I hope you win.

I hope you stop changing your argument and admit that your initial premise was wrong.

 

[RayClay]

I hope you stop changing your argument and admit that your initial premise was wrong.

You've piqued my curiosity. What is my argument? I figured I knew, since I've been here all the time, but I'd really like you to tell me.

 

[Deus Irae]

You've piqued my curiosity. What is my argument? I figured I knew, since I've been here all the time, but I'd really like you to tell me.

Pittsburgh never has question marks at LB. I'll repeat, never. That's because any linebacker who makes it has to compete with first second and third round picks, top FAs like Farrior in addition to low round picks and FAs. Woodley was a second round pick, brought along through competition. Harrison was a FA who took six years to prove himself through that type od competition.

The Steelers drafted LB with their first and second pick in 2007. They had been acquiring linebackers in the top of the draft and top FAs like Farrior for years.

They are so deep that their 2007 pick, number 15 overall, had the luxury of playing behind Foote for two solid years. Harrison took six years to break out.

There is no comparison to Pittsburgh in the way we stock linebackers, please stop.

Pittsburgh always has competition at LB, usually because they draft it and acquire it. Yes, they have rounds in the draft. 2 is better than 7.

I don't drink, nor do I do hallucinogens, which would be required to think we have two first rounders at ILB and a possible 27.5 sacks from our OLBs.

We've drafted one starting linebacker in 8 years. Two of the three we acquired are gone. We need 4.

Bell, Farrior and Porter provided the tough competition draft picks and FAs like Harrison had to compete with. That was my only point. Pitt spends resources to acquire talent.

We had great competition had we developed it during Johnson's 9th and 10th years in the league. We didn't, unless you think Matt Chatham was a possible starter.

My argument is the Steelers stock the LB position and we don't. They make bad picks etc. but they usually have a good corps.

If you can't see the problems and inconsistencies here, I don't know what else to tell you. It's not as if they're difficult to spot. Again, we pointed out the small number of linebackers drafted by the Steelers in recent years, but you basically ignored that.

 

[RayClay]

Mike Vrabel. They even drafted our best LB addition of the decade for us.

And they couldn't develop him - he started 0 games in 4 years with them before we picked him up as a castoff in 2001.

He couldn't crack the lineup.....Because they were so stocked at LB!

At the end of Vrabel's tenure with the Steelers, it had mostly been an issue with the numbers game at linebacker, as the Steelers had veterans Jason Gildon and Earl Holmes firmly in as the starters as well as the emergence of Joey Porter at the position. Before leaving for New England, Steelers head coach Bill Cowher told Vrabel that while he believed Vrabel would be a starter in the NFL, he wouldn't be a starter with the Steelers. Vrabel has since credited Cowher for his decision not to retire and sign with the Patriots.

Mike Vrabel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RayClay]

If you can't see the problems and inconsistencies here, I don't know what else to tell you. It's not as if they're difficult to spot. Again, we pointed out the small number of linebackers drafted by the Steelers in recent years, but you basically ignored that.

I was exaggerating to make a point.

Let's contrast them with us. They have never, in recent memory relied on three undrafted free agents and a mid round pick who's never touched the field to fill two starting spots.

That's what we're doing. Find me the year Pittsburgh depended on similar talent for half their linebacking starters and you win.

Don't even think of comparing Harrison who fought competition for 5 years with Woods who was handed the job due to no competition.

 

[RayClay]

If you can't see the problems and inconsistencies here, I don't know what else to tell you. It's not as if they're difficult to spot. Again, we pointed out the small number of linebackers drafted by the Steelers in recent years, but you basically ignored that.

Pitt drafted six in the first four rounds. We drafted two. If you think some period they drafted less, maybe it's because they had no room?

 

[Deus Irae]

I was exaggerating to make a point.

Let's contrast them with us. They have never, in recent memory relied on three undrafted free agents or a player who's never touched the field to fill two starting spots.

That's what we're doing. Find me the year Pittsburgh depended on similar talent for half their linebacking starters and you win.

Don't even think of comparing Harrison who fought competition for 5 years with Woods who was handed the job due to no competition.

Ok, taking your word that you were just exaggerating, why not just say that before instead of insisting that everyone else was wrong when countering your exaggeration? As a result of that, this became more contentious than need be, especially since I share the concerns about the LB spot, albeit to a lesser extent than either you or Mg. There's an easy response to your contrast:

The Steelers are a linebacker first, last and always defense. The Patriots love their linebackers, but they are a D-line first defense when it comes to the draft. It's a different way of prioritizing the two levels of defense based upon the overall defensive approach. What you and Mg have been arguing as a deficiency is nothing of the kind. It's simply a difference in emphasis, and the Patriots approach has been more successful this decade.

 

[RayClay]

Ok, taking your word that you were just exaggerating, why not just say that before instead of insisting that everyone else was wrong when countering your exaggeration? As a result of that, this became more contentious than need be, especially since I share the concerns about the LB spot, albeit to a lesser extent than either you or Mg. There's an easy response to your contrast:

The Steelers are a linebacker first, last and always defense. The Patriots love their linebackers, but they are a D-line first defense when it comes to the draft. It's a different way of prioritizing the two levels of defense based upon the overall defensive approach. What you and Mg have been arguing as a deficiency is nothing of the kind. It's simply a difference in emphasis, and the Patriots approach has been more successful this decade.

Well damn, I said a lot of stuff, How can I remember I used a little hyperbole to make a point. You sounded like you thought our LB situation was dandy and i was nuts.

You know a lot of people are int the mode of explaining what happened and you were doing a bit of that too. Peace.

I'll agree with everything you're saying here and i don't expect us to emphasize LB like Pitt does, but i do think we failed to change our strategy when availability of quality 3-4 FA LBs apparently dried up (just my guess).

I agree we have different emphasis, but i do not agree we are not deficient, we are. If we land a big time pass rushing OLB, I think we can get by at ILB with Brusch and a jag or UFA worked in.

Other than that, we have to believe that BB skunked whole league 3 times and Guyton, Redd and Woods are way better than the league thinks.

I like Crabel, but he looks a little light and he hasn't played.

I'd love to be wrong, but it seems like a lot of wishful thinking to me and I'm of the opinion that late season LB play has cost us a few years now.

I'm fine with picking up old value players, but when I see TBC, all I see is a guy handed the job who folded, giving way to an even less experienced guy and an old linebacking corps that looked like it was going to die in a big game.

Sorry, that's honestly how I feel.

 

[RayClay]

Furthe clarifying my position. If we are going mostly UDFA, we need to work towards about 2012. Bring in 6 hoping two will stick.

Only our most recent crop has seen any competition, and that's with each other. Until we're prepared to run tryout type camps every year, we need to draft or sign some NFL ready talent.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well damn, I said a lot of stuff, How can I remember I used a little hyperbole to make a point. You sounded like you thought our LB situation was dandy and i was nuts.

You know a lot of people are int the mode of explaining what happened and you were doing a bit of that too. Peace.

I'll agree with everything you're saying here and i don't expect us to emphasize LB like Pitt does, but i do think we failed to change our strategy when availability of quality 3-4 FA LBs apparently dried up (just my guess).

I agree we have different emphasis, but i do not agree we are not deficient, we are. If we land a big time pass rushing OLB, I think we can get by at ILB with Brusch and a jag or UFA worked in.

Other than that, we have to believe that BB skunked whole league 3 times and Guyton, Redd and Woods are way better than the league thinks.

I like Crabel, but he looks a little light and he hasn't played.

I'd love to be wrong, but it seems like a lot of wishful thinking to me and I'm of the opinion that late season LB play has cost us a few years now.

I'm fine with picking up old value players, but when I see TBC, all I see is a guy handed the job who folded, giving way to an even less experienced guy and an old linebacking corps that looked like it was going to die in a big game.

Sorry, that's honestly how I feel.

Without going through too much of this, you and Mg are wrong to talk about 3 undrafted players as if you're definitely correct on that. You're not. You're speculating on that situation and ignoring other people involved. Redd, for example, could be cut tomorrow and it wouldn't greatly impact my opinion on the LB corps. I wanted Taylor (not Peppers) and I've mentioned bringing in Brooks, because I think the Patriots really could use one more wily veteran on the line, but I'm not going to worry about it and call the team deficient there, or anything else, when it's still only May. Furthermore, the loss of their 3rd round LB to injury both last year and this year is a part of this 'deficiency' you two keep pointing to, so I don't see myself decrying team strategy for that.

You two can really only make your argument by ignoring the huge factor injury has played with this LB corps in recent years when you compare the two teams. Pittsburgh has been very lucky in that area and New England hasn't. Here's the missed games for Pittsburgh's starting linebackers, broken down by year.

2008: 2
2007: 0
2006: 3
2005: 5
2004: 4
2003: 2

Colvin alone missed 14 games in 2003, which is just 2 fewer than every single starting linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers has missed, for any reason, since the start of the 2003 season.

Also, just as an aside.... The Steelers brought Napoleon Harris in for a look after cutting Foote loose. (Kevin Bacon hat tip)