PDA

View Full Version : Source: Steelers to tag LaMarr Woodley



zulater
02-15-2011, 08:07 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6125994

The Pittsburgh Steelers will place its franchise tag on linebacker LaMarr Woodley, a source familiar with the situation told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.

Devilsdancefloor
02-15-2011, 08:14 PM
Good do it! DO IT NOW! :)

steelersfan425
02-15-2011, 08:28 PM
great news

Merchant
02-15-2011, 09:01 PM
Wasn't really another option here because of the 30% rule or whatever.

steelerdude15
02-15-2011, 10:15 PM
This is good, I'm glad to see this is going to happen.

fansince'76
02-15-2011, 10:16 PM
The Steelers have until February 23 to officially tag Woodley but with a new collective bargaining agreement still being negotiated, there is a chance the franchise designation will cease to exist after the current CBA expires on March 4.

Yes, but the possibility also exists that FA itself will get thrown out the window for this year at the same time and players who would have been free agents will be forced to go back to their teams for 120% of their 2010 salary anyway.

steelpride12
02-15-2011, 10:31 PM
YESSS! Awesome news!

steelreserve
02-15-2011, 10:48 PM
Yes, but the possibility also exists that FA itself will get thrown out the window for this year at the same time and players who would have been free agents will be forced to go back to their teams for 120% of their 2010 salary anyway.

Where did that 20% come from? This is the second time I've seen it, but I really can't find the explanation why it would happen.

Steeldude
02-15-2011, 11:10 PM
he isn't a top 5 LB. doesn't seem to be a good investment for a player who disappears way too often.

Galax Steeler
02-16-2011, 04:00 AM
This is good news get him locked in for next year.

Austin87
02-16-2011, 05:06 AM
This is well deserved.

HometownGal
02-16-2011, 06:21 AM
Awesome! :applaudit: :tt02:

steeldevil
02-16-2011, 06:37 AM
Good to hear.

TroysBarber
02-16-2011, 06:57 AM
With the depth that we have at LB, and the lack of depth at DB, why wouldn't they have tagged Ike instead?

fansince'76
02-16-2011, 06:58 AM
Where did that 20% come from? This is the second time I've seen it, but I really can't find the explanation why it would happen.

Not sure where they derived the 120% from, but here's where I saw it: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/02/11/nfl-labor-free-agency.ap/index.html

salamander
02-16-2011, 08:02 AM
Good. Now let's try to get some sort of deal worked out with Ike.

steelreserve
02-16-2011, 10:29 AM
Not sure where they derived the 120% from, but here's where I saw it: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/02/11/nfl-labor-free-agency.ap/index.html

That's what I saw from the other thread, but the article itself didn't give much of an explanation. I wonder if that's just some number they pulled out of their ass as an example of "anything can happen with a new CBA."

steelreserve
02-16-2011, 11:02 AM
he isn't a top 5 LB. doesn't seem to be a good investment for a player who disappears way too often.

I tend to agree. No way does he need to be the second-highest paid guy on the team behind Ben. Unless we have a new contract already worked out for substantially less than that, this is going to be a bad move that almost certainly costs us the opportunity to sign or retain another key player, maybe two. I can only hope that it's only a temporary move because of the CBA.

Even if we lost Woodley, I wouldn't be too worried. Can anyone remember the last time we DIDN'T have two highly-rated outside linebackers? Neither can I. We plug guys in and it works. If we lose Woodley, by midseason next year, we'll all be talking about OMG, the sudden emergence of Jason Worilds.



With the depth that we have at LB, and the lack of depth at DB, why wouldn't they have tagged Ike instead?

Because it would cost $10 million, and at that price -- hell, why NOT go after Asomugha?

Dino 6 Rings
02-16-2011, 11:02 AM
With the depth that we have at LB, and the lack of depth at DB, why wouldn't they have tagged Ike instead?

Ike drafted in 03, Woodley drafted in 07.

Lock down Woodley now, with the Franchise Tag, and then negotiate in good faith with Ike who isn't getting any younger. Ike has 11 Ints in his career, which includes 7 years as a starter. He's already turning 31 years old this May. Its not as if he's going to get huge dollars on the open market for a winning team if he goes to free agency. Sure he could probably sign on with the Lions or the Cardinals for big dollars, and then, watch the playoffs from home and hope he's happy with just his 2 rings for the rest of his life. Or he can negotiate with the team that drafted him, for a 4 year deal (3 more likely) that helps him to eventually retire a Steeler. Not too many 35 year old CBs dominating the league at this point.

Woodley however would get Gigantic Dollar offers from other teams that would be hard to match if he went to Free Agency, teams like the Patriots, Packers, Ravens, Jets, anyone running a 3-4 would snatch him up in a heart beat and bid with each other putting him completely out of our range at this point.

At least, that's my opinion. I'm kind of crazy though...so take it with a grain of salt.

Dino 6 Rings
02-16-2011, 11:05 AM
I tend to agree. No way does he need to be the second-highest paid guy on the team behind Ben. Unless we have a new contract already worked out for substantially less than that, this is going to be a bad move that almost certainly costs us the opportunity to sign or retain another key player, maybe two. I can only hope that it's only a temporary move because of the CBA.

Even if we lost Woodley, I wouldn't be too worried. Can anyone remember the last time we DIDN'T have two highly-rated outside linebackers? Neither can I. We plug guys in and it works. If we lose Woodley, by midseason next year, we'll all be talking about OMG, the sudden emergence of Jason Worilds.




Because it would cost $10 million, and at that price -- hell, why NOT go after Asomugha?

I tend to agree, he shouldn't be the 2nd highest paid player on the team. But we also could probably negotiate a fair contract with him after tagging him this season. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't tag him, and end up signing a 5 year deal with him after the CBA is worked out. It helps keeping him on the roster cause Harrison isn't getting any younger either. So we could always move Woodley around, or have him be the guy drawing double teams after Harrison is done, which in my opinion, we get 2 more great years out of Silverback, and that's about it.

Woodley could play for at least another 5 at a high level, in my opinion, so he's a good choice to Tag now, work out a deal with and then worry about the rest later on.

st33lersguy
02-16-2011, 02:11 PM
Good news!

steelreserve
02-16-2011, 02:23 PM
I tend to agree, he shouldn't be the 2nd highest paid player on the team. But we also could probably negotiate a fair contract with him after tagging him this season. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't tag him, and end up signing a 5 year deal with him after the CBA is worked out. It helps keeping him on the roster cause Harrison isn't getting any younger either. So we could always move Woodley around, or have him be the guy drawing double teams after Harrison is done, which in my opinion, we get 2 more great years out of Silverback, and that's about it.

Woodley could play for at least another 5 at a high level, in my opinion, so he's a good choice to Tag now, work out a deal with and then worry about the rest later on.

Put it this way ... if it came down to keeping Woodley in exchange for losing Taylor AND not getting anyone new at CB, is that a good move for us? Because that's basically the trade-off we'd be making with the franchise tag. I wouldn't want that.

Besides, we'll probably draft another OLB in rounds 1-3 like we always do. I wouldn't worry about whoever that is not panning out either. It's been proven that we can basically put anyone at the OLB spot and we'll get at least 8 1/2 sacks out of him as long as he's not built like a wide receiver (i.e., Bruce Davis).

Craic
02-16-2011, 05:50 PM
Why did Woodley get the tag??

Simple, because in Dick Lebeau's system, the LB's are the core of the system, if they work, the system works to a great extent. If they don't work, neither does the system, regardless of how good the CB's are.

I am not so sure Woodley "disappeared" this year. After all, there are only so many tackles and stops to go around. Timmons's rise, especially to the level he played at, specifically on the same side as Woodley, means Woodley doesn't have to take up as much slack. You really don't want all of your linebackers having over 100 tackles a year- because that means your defense is on the field way to often.

Tag Woodley, and keep the core of your system intact-and prob. the best LB corp in the NFL.

zulater
02-16-2011, 06:57 PM
Woodley is a complete linebacker, he plays the run as well as he pressure's the passer, and he also is getting to be very good in coverage. I know some people think if you're not getting two sacks a game you're mediocre, but that's just not the way it worrks in the NFL. People seem to forget there are two teams out there trying to make plays.

Last thing, to anyone who doesn't think Woodley deserves to be be paid the average of the top 5 linebackers as a franchise tag would net him. If he were an UFA this year he'd likely come away the highest paid linebacker in the game.

SteelerFanInStl
02-16-2011, 07:25 PM
It beats using the franchise tag on Starks like was done previously.

KeiselPower99
02-16-2011, 07:33 PM
Shouldve used it on Suisham. Honestly though due to the 30% rule this is the only way a logical deal wouldve been made.

steelreserve
02-16-2011, 09:35 PM
Tag Woodley, and keep the core of your system intact-and prob. the best LB corp in the NFL.

I just think, if you look at the difference between the best linebacker in the NFL and an average linebacker ... then look at the difference between the best cornerback in the NFL and an average cornerback ... it's pretty obvious which is the bigger impact position. The tag costs the same either way. The salary numbers are almost identical for those positions.

Also, to whoever mentioned the 30% rule, that only applied LAST year because of the no-cap situation. Only way it would apply this year is if there's no new labor deal, which would kind of render salaries pointless. Although I can see the tag being used to keep him from leaving UNTIL we can negotiate something, which I really hope is what we're doing.

JayC
02-16-2011, 10:57 PM
i like woodley and i'm glad we are going to use it on him over anyone else. now we must use our first pick on a cornerback

Craic
02-16-2011, 11:10 PM
I just think, if you look at the difference between the best linebacker in the NFL and an average linebacker ... then look at the difference between the best cornerback in the NFL and an average cornerback ... it's pretty obvious which is the bigger impact position. The tag costs the same either way. The salary numbers are almost identical for those positions.

I completely understand what you're saying, and on a simple one-to-one comparison I absolutely agree with you. The thing is, in this system, it doesn't matter how good a CB is, if the LB's aren't performing. Think about it for a second, we have made it to the SB 3 times in 6 years, with all but 1 substandard CBs. If we had top CB's and substandard LB's, do you think that would have happened? In a 4-3 or maybe even GB's 3-4 maybe. But in our 3-4, absolutely no way, because our LB's are the engine of the defense.

steelreserve
02-17-2011, 01:57 AM
I completely understand what you're saying, and on a simple one-to-one comparison I absolutely agree with you. The thing is, in this system, it doesn't matter how good a CB is, if the LB's aren't performing. Think about it for a second, we have made it to the SB 3 times in 6 years, with all but 1 substandard CBs. If we had top CB's and substandard LB's, do you think that would have happened? In a 4-3 or maybe even GB's 3-4 maybe. But in our 3-4, absolutely no way, because our LB's are the engine of the defense.

I also think our system makes above-average LBs into star LBs. We won a Super Bowl with Haggans and Foote starting. On the other hand, in 2005 and 2008, Townsend was better than Gay is now, and probably McFadden. I wouldn't call him a superstar by any means, but he was definitely adequate. Those seasons, particularly 2008, were ones where I was DEFINITELY not worried about getting dinked and dunked to death. People forget about the guy, but I really think that does prove we NEED two respectable corners, and right now we have one and a half, and we try to cover it up.

Craic
02-17-2011, 04:00 AM
I also think our system makes above-average LBs into star LBs. We won a Super Bowl with Haggans and Foote starting. On the other hand, in 2005 and 2008, Townsend was better than Gay is now, and probably McFadden. I wouldn't call him a superstar by any means, but he was definitely adequate. Those seasons, particularly 2008, were ones where I was DEFINITELY not worried about getting dinked and dunked to death. People forget about the guy, but I really think that does prove we NEED two respectable corners, and right now we have one and a half, and we try to cover it up.

Not so. Between McFadden and Gay, they had 12 starts that season. Ike started 16, Townsend only had 4 starts. It was the same defense we have now, except for Timmons replacing Foote. The difference was that we had 2 LB's that played an excellent season-DPOY and very easily could have been Rookie of the year IMO. He had 11.5 sacks, had the most fumble recoveries of any defensive player in the NFL (means he's playing head up ball), heck, the kid even had an INT.

Farrior also had a monster year that year, and both he and Harrison went to the probowl.

Yet, there was a 4th quarter comeback in I believe EVERY playoff game against the Steelers. San Diego, who were crushed through 3 quarters, put up 14 points in the fourth quarter to make it a game (we had to put up at least 1 TD in order to win the game). Phillip Rivers through for 21/35 308 Yards, 3 TD's and an int. He had a QB rating of 105 that game.

The Ravens, in that brutal AFCCG, were down by 9 points heading into the 4th quarter. Our defense let them drive for a score, and then they had the ball again, starting a drive to go on top when Troy picked it off for the TD.

Of course, we know about the defensive pass failure in the SB.

Matter of fact, let's look at the 4th quarter the entire year.

Houston- 3 points in the 1st three quarters, 14 points in the 4th quarter
Cleveland, 3 points first three, 3 points in the fourth
Philly, 10 (1st 3), 3 fourth. End of game drive (short field) to make it a 2 possession game.
Baltimore, 13 first three, 7 fourth. End of game drive to tie game.
Jax 14 in first three, 7 in fourth (draw within a point)
Cincy- 10 - 0 (good game-of course, Cincy was 0-7.
Giants, 9 - 12 (took the lead and won the game in fourth quarter, only TD they scored)

Ok, I'm getting board. But don't forget the Colts, who drove to win, or the Titans, broke open a close game (17-14) in the fourth to win. Thus, we still had a problem, but it was not evident, because the LB's were playing at such a high level that year.

The core of this team's defensive philosophy is hurry the QB, Hit the QB, sack the QB, make him throw errant passes. That means, for this system, your primary need is LB's.

steelreserve
02-17-2011, 08:43 PM
I definitely agree that the LBs are the key to the defense. I think where we differ is on just how much of a difference Woodley makes over anyone else we would put in his place. I tend to think we'll do fine with anyone who's above-average -- and in fact, our defense makes average and above-average players at the OLB spot look better. Our blitzing schemes are all based on creating confusion and advantageous matchups, and the LBs are the ones who benefit from it the most. That's how guys like Haggans end up with 8 or 9 sacks.

I really think that as long as we have one OLB with a reputation as a "Feared Pass Rusher" who commands a lot of attention from the defense (and away from the other rushers), we'll be fine. Right now, that's Harrison, just like Porter before him and Gildon before him and Lloyd before him. I don't know if I ever see Woodley filling that role or not. Is it nice to have him as the second OLB? Sure. Is it worth paying $10 million a year for? Not really. I think it would benefit other areas much more.

As for the CB issue ... let me put it this way, do you REALLY want to go through another season with McFadden and Gay? Does anyone seriously think they're good enough to be every-down starters on this team? I thought that was more or less settled long ago. Townsend might not have started most games in 2008, but even being better than Gay as a nickel back makes a hell of a lot of difference. Who was getting picked on time after time this year? Gay, the nickel back. What's our shitty defense that can't stop the run or the pass? That's right, the nickel.

Seems pretty obvious how we need to fix the problem, and paying $10 million for the two extra sacks we'd get out of Woodley instead of someone else is not the way to do that.

86WARD
02-17-2011, 09:09 PM
Good post...steelreserve.

Craic
02-17-2011, 10:23 PM
I definitely agree that the LBs are the key to the defense. I think where we differ is on just how much of a difference Woodley makes over anyone else we would put in his place. I tend to think we'll do fine with anyone who's above-average -- and in fact, our defense makes average and above-average players at the OLB spot look better. Our blitzing schemes are all based on creating confusion and advantageous matchups, and the LBs are the ones who benefit from it the most. That's how guys like Haggans end up with 8 or 9 sacks.

I really think that as long as we have one OLB with a reputation as a "Feared Pass Rusher" who commands a lot of attention from the defense (and away from the other rushers), we'll be fine. Right now, that's Harrison, just like Porter before him and Gildon before him and Lloyd before him. I don't know if I ever see Woodley filling that role or not. Is it nice to have him as the second OLB? Sure. Is it worth paying $10 million a year for? Not really. I think it would benefit other areas much more.

As for the CB issue ... let me put it this way, do you REALLY want to go through another season with McFadden and Gay? Does anyone seriously think they're good enough to be every-down starters on this team? I thought that was more or less settled long ago. Townsend might not have started most games in 2008, but even being better than Gay as a nickel back makes a hell of a lot of difference. Who was getting picked on time after time this year? Gay, the nickel back. What's our shitty defense that can't stop the run or the pass? That's right, the nickel.

Seems pretty obvious how we need to fix the problem, and paying $10 million for the two extra sacks we'd get out of Woodley instead of someone else is not the way to do that.

Well, the problem is you are just look at LB's as run support-when they are also a key element in the pass game. On top of that, I think you may have a biased view about Gay from last year.

After all, who has the most passes defended? Troy P. and Gay. And don't forget, Gay only gets on the field in pass situations-which means he has done quite well as the Nickel CB- tied for top DB in passes defended, Tied with McFadded for top DB in sacks. No, this year, he actually played pretty well in the Nickel. I think that is his niche. He isn't a starter, but he sure as anything is a Nickel CB.

Also, Woodley and Farrior are tied with 5 passes defended. Timmons has 10 (If i remember right, he is the Nickel LB).

So, would bringing in a CB at 10 mill, or tagging Woodley at 10 mill be better for us?

Woodley: Already knows system, has the speed and ability to cover short routes in the zone system, also has the ability to get to the QB and provide pressure, which forces RB's and FB's to not just doubleteam on Harrison, and good in run support.

Featured CB: Brand new to a VERY different system. Most likely not asked to support the run like in Pittsburgh. Most likely not asked to play 10-12 yards off the line- like in Pittsburgh, which means no bump and run coverage and very little Man to man coverage-something most featured CB's prefer to play-rather than Zone.

I'd have to say, in THIS DICK LEBEAU system, Woodley is more important than a CB when it comes to 10 Mill for 1 year.

Now, if the system changes-- If it was a long term contract so that the CB could learn the system-- if another LB was as good in coverage as Woodley (Haggans was not- he had 1 year of 8 passes defended, 1 year of 4 passes, and every year other than that not more than two. Clark had one year at 5, one at 5, then no more than 3. Woodley, after just 3 years (of actually playing time, he barely touched the field his first year), has equaled their best years. BTW, he is also on pace to best their PD by a third or more.

So, no, you can't just stick any ol' decent LB in and have them play well in this system. They have to be able to support the pass as well as the run-as well as go after the QB. When you are basically taking undersized DT's and turning them into stand up players who have to act like CB's as well as stop the run as well as go after the QB, you pay the guys very well who can actually protect against the pass.

If we lose Woodley-just wait and watch how many TE and FB/RB routes will absolutely kill us next year. Least a CB has help over the top with Troy P. and Clark.

steelreserve
02-17-2011, 11:18 PM
I guess the problem is that either you're overestimating how good Woodley and Gay are, or I'm underestimating how good they are. Probably not going to get solved.

What I do know is, I've seen plenty of LBs as good as Woodley leave, and we've been just fine. Worst case, even if we see a fall-off with Woodley gone ... move one guy around, and we have Harrison and Timmons as the OLBs and Farrior and Foote inside. We're not too bad off that way.

And hypothetically, if we lose Taylor and don't do anything about it, we're not far off from the Lee Flowers/Deon Figures days. That's a scary thought.

Craic
02-17-2011, 11:29 PM
I guess the problem is that either you're overestimating how good Woodley and Gay are, or I'm underestimating how good they are. Probably not going to get solved.

What I do know is, I've seen plenty of LBs as good as Woodley leave, and we've been just fine. Worst case, even if we see a fall-off with Woodley gone ... move one guy around, and we have Harrison and Timmons as the OLBs and Farrior and Foote inside. We're not too bad off that way.

And hypothetically, if we lose Taylor and don't do anything about it, we're not far off from the Lee Flowers/Deon Figures days. That's a scary thought.

Honestly, I don't think we are over-under estimating the players themselves (my last post not withstanding), as much as the effect of a good player in a position within this system.

And there is one thing you are absolutely right about, somehow, this team seems to always bring up players and put them in positions that make a positive impact.

Steeldude
02-18-2011, 02:50 AM
woodley is not consistent enough to demand such a big check.

the DBs and O-line are far more important than woodley, IMO. just plug in the next LB. after all, gildon was a horrible LB, but people thought he was great because he got some sacks due to the steelers' scheme. i didn't care too much for porter either.

zulater
02-18-2011, 02:17 PM
woodley is not consistent enough to demand such a big check.

the DBs and O-line are far more important than woodley, IMO. just plug in the next LB. after all, gildon was a horrible LB, but people thought he was great because he got some sacks due to the steelers' scheme. i didn't care too much for porter either.

Uh yes he is, and you don't know nearly what the coaches know, so I think I'll take their word for it.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e5f2cd/article/steelers-use-franchise-tag-on-versatile-olb-woodley?module=HP_headlines

It's now official, or as official as it can be pending the new CBA.

What is clear is that the Steelers plan to move foward with Woodley as part of their plans. And I commend them for that. :applaudit:

zulater
02-18-2011, 02:42 PM
Two things, first if the Steelers thought that Woodley was that easily replaced they would have allowed him to walk. They didn't, this despite having Worldis in the wings.

So much for the interchanagable parts theory.

Now as to the comparison's that have been made of Woodley to Haggans and Gildon. Haggans never had 10 sacks in a season in his career, he came close once with 9 in 2005, but other than that in his 11 NFL seasons his career high was 6.5

Woodley has posted at least 10 sacks in every one of his 3 seasons as an NFL starter.

Now as far as Gildon is concerned, Jason was a one trick pony, he rushed the passer pretty well, he was ok as a run stopper, but couldn't cover your granny on a pass.

Woodley is stronger against the run than either of the two. The Steelers had the best run defense they've had since 70's this year, Woodley was very much a part of that.

Haggans was pretty good in coverage, but I would say it's pretty evident that Woodley has just about reached Haggans's peak level in coverage, and he's still getting better.

Bottom line Haggans and Gildon were both good players in their time, but neither was nearly as good as Woodley. and Woodley is just approaching his peak years, so it would be ludicrous to part ways with him at this time.

NJarhead
02-18-2011, 02:55 PM
Two things, first if the Steelers thought that Woodley was that easily replaced they would have allowed him to walk. They didn't, this despite having Worldis in the wings.

So much for the interchanagable parts theory.

Now as to the comparison's that have been made of Woodley to Haggans and Gildon. Haggans never had 10 sacks in a season in his career, he came close once with 9 in 2005, but other than that in his 11 NFL seasons his career high was 6.5

Woodley has posted at least 10 sacks in every one of his 3 seasons as an NFL starter.

Now as far as Gildon is concerned, Jason was a one trick pony, he rushed the passer pretty well, he was ok as a run stopper, but couldn't cover your granny on a pass.

Woodley is stronger against the run than either of the two. The Steelers had the best run defense they've had since 70's this year, Woodley was very much a part of that.

Haggans was pretty good in coverage, but I would say it's pretty evident that Woodley has just about reached Haggans's peak level in coverage, and he's still getting better.

Bottom line Haggans and Gildon were both good players in their time, but neither was nearly as good as Woodley. and Woodley is just approaching his peak years, so it would be ludicrous to part ways with him at this time.

Best in a 16 game schedule in Steelers history actually. None of the teams of the 1970's allowed as few as they did in 2010 (1004 yards rushing).

HometownGal
02-18-2011, 02:59 PM
Good news! :applaudit: :thumbsup: They obviously put a tremendous amount of value in Wood and realize that he is a very important wheel in the defensive cog. Bravo! :kudos:

Galax Steeler
02-18-2011, 03:11 PM
I think it is a good thing to bring him back as HTG said he is very valuable to this team.

steelreserve
02-18-2011, 05:56 PM
Uh yes he is, and you don't know nearly what the coaches know, so I think I'll take their word for it.

I think there needs to be a rule on this message board where if you use the "you're just a fan, I'll trust the coaching staff" line, you automatically lose the argument. Kind of like the rule in a regular debate where the first person who compares their opponent to Hitler is disqualified. It's the same principle as Godwin's Law -- as an online debate about the Steelers grows longer, the probability of someone saying we should just trust the coaching staff approaches 1. Note that if you use this line of reasoning, you also invalidate your own argument, since you, too, are just a fan whose opinion doesn't count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Anyway, despite that, I am glad Woodley's not going anywhere -- now let's work on getting that contract down to $4 or $5 million a year. At least at the start.

Never said I was opposed to keeping him, as long as it's not going to cost us other players. We can afford to pay him $7 or $8 million a couple years into his contract when he (hopefully) takes over the lead role from Harrison, but we can't afford to now. I hope that was the plan all along and the tag is just because of the labor uncertainty.

The Duke
02-18-2011, 05:59 PM
now let's work on getting that contract down to $4 or $5 million a year.

This!

I am happy to have him but not for 10 million. Especially if it costs us resigning other players, mainly ike

steeldevil
02-18-2011, 06:07 PM
Good news. Now get a contract done that is fair to the Steelers and Lamarr.

Craic
02-18-2011, 06:20 PM
Two things, first if the Steelers thought that Woodley was that easily replaced they would have allowed him to walk. They didn't, this despite having Worldis in the wings.

So much for the interchanagable parts theory.

Now as to the comparison's that have been made of Woodley to Haggans and Gildon. Haggans never had 10 sacks in a season in his career, he came close once with 9 in 2005, but other than that in his 11 NFL seasons his career high was 6.5

Woodley has posted at least 10 sacks in every one of his 3 seasons as an NFL starter.

Now as far as Gildon is concerned, Jason was a one trick pony, he rushed the passer pretty well, he was ok as a run stopper, but couldn't cover your granny on a pass.

Woodley is stronger against the run than either of the two. The Steelers had the best run defense they've had since 70's this year, Woodley was very much a part of that.

Haggans was pretty good in coverage, but I would say it's pretty evident that Woodley has just about reached Haggans's peak level in coverage, and he's still getting better.

Bottom line Haggans and Gildon were both good players in their time, but neither was nearly as good as Woodley. and Woodley is just approaching his peak years, so it would be ludicrous to part ways with him at this time.

Only place I'd disagree with you Zu, is that Woodley has just about reached Haggan's peak level.
I think earlier in this tread, I posted the stats concerning passes defended between those two.
Haggans had 1 year of 8, one year of 4 passes defended, and after that, only two.
Woodley however, in just three years, has put up the same numbers, but he has done it consistently. Haggans wasn't consistent.
IMO, he has already surpassed Haggans.

No, this is a LB corp that needs to stay together until the players are simply unable to perform due to age.

Chidi29
02-18-2011, 07:10 PM
I love Woodley. Think he's a great player. Monster when it counts.

And if you want to franchise him, I can live with that.

But I can't live with giving him a long-term deal if it's going to cost us $45 million+ in guaranteed money. Which seems about market value.

Even if Woodley is better than Gildon and Haggans, and that's true, we're still excellent at plugging and playing anyone at OLB. How bad was our run defense in the Haggans years? The run defense didn't suffer at all. While important, there are is a lot more that goes into a successful run defense than the strong side linebacker.

With Worilds in the wings, he's going to have to replace someone.

86WARD
02-18-2011, 07:16 PM
Woodley is a good player...he's not a $10M/yar player. They need to sign him to a long term deal...that's not $10M/year...lol...

Craic
02-18-2011, 08:14 PM
I love Woodley. Think he's a great player. Monster when it counts.

And if you want to franchise him, I can live with that.

But I can't live with giving him a long-term deal if it's going to cost us $45 million+ in guaranteed money. Which seems about market value.

Even if Woodley is better than Gildon and Haggans, and that's true, we're still excellent at plugging and playing anyone at OLB. How bad was our run defense in the Haggans years? The run defense didn't suffer at all. While important, there are is a lot more that goes into a successful run defense than the strong side linebacker.

With Worilds in the wings, he's going to have to replace someone.

A more important question, how bad was our pass defense? I keep finding it quite interesting that people forget that LB's are very much a key element in pass defense in this system-both for rushing the passer, and in coverage. I don't care that our run defense didn't suffer much. Do you really think Worlids is as good a pass defender as Woodley?

Chidi29
02-18-2011, 08:28 PM
A more important question, how bad was our pass defense? I keep finding it quite interesting that people forget that LB's are very much a key element in pass defense in this system-both for rushing the passer, and in coverage. I don't care that our run defense didn't suffer much. Do you really think Worlids is as good a pass defender as Woodley?

No but that's because Woodley is obviously the better player. But I think Worilds could learn. Woodley did. He was a DE at Michigan. Harrison probably did too. Don't know a whole lot about his college days but I can only assume he was a LE in a 4-3.

While we have been doing it more, it's not like we drop our backers into coverage all the time.

My main point isn't that we have a better player than Woodley. We don't. My point is that he is not worth the money.

steelreserve
02-18-2011, 11:40 PM
No but that's because Woodley is obviously the better player. But I think Worilds could learn. Woodley did. He was a DE at Michigan. Harrison probably did too. Don't know a whole lot about his college days but I can only assume he was a LE in a 4-3.

While we have been doing it more, it's not like we drop our backers into coverage all the time.

My main point isn't that we have a better player than Woodley. We don't. My point is that he is not worth the money.

I think that's everyone point who's not coming out 100% in favor of this. Obviously, if it was just a question of re-sign him or don't re-sign him, with nothing else to it, that would be a no-brainer.

This makes it look like Worilds is supposed to take over for Harrison in a couple years. Sadly, anything more than that out of James is bonus time.

Steeldude
02-19-2011, 12:40 AM
Uh yes he is, and you don't know nearly what the coaches know, so I think I'll take their word for it.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e5f2cd/article/steelers-use-franchise-tag-on-versatile-olb-woodley?module=HP_headlines

It's now official, or as official as it can be pending the new CBA.

What is clear is that the Steelers plan to move foward with Woodley as part of their plans. And I commend them for that. :applaudit:

i know, because the coaches were so right about kordell. what was i thinking?

i don't commend the steelers for tagging woodley and having to pay him 10 mil a year. that's too much for a player who disppears too often. so what does timmons get when his contract is up? 10 mil also?

Craic
02-19-2011, 01:07 AM
No but that's because Woodley is obviously the better player. But I think Worilds could learn. Woodley did. He was a DE at Michigan. Harrison probably did too. Don't know a whole lot about his college days but I can only assume he was a LE in a 4-3.

While we have been doing it more, it's not like we drop our backers into coverage all the time.

My main point isn't that we have a better player than Woodley. We don't. My point is that he is not worth the money.

We do drop our LB's into coverage all the time, unless the offense is playing max protect. Otherwise, you would see a RB, FB, or TE running free down the field all the time.
We don't drop ALL our LB's in coverage all the time. They vary depending on who is on the weakside, but if you watch, on every defensive passing play, we have at least 1, and often 2 LB's in coverage.

Craic
02-19-2011, 01:14 AM
i know, because the coaches were so right about kordell. what was i thinking?

i don't commend the steelers for tagging woodley and having to pay him 10 mil a year. that's too much for a player who disppears too often. so what does timmons get when his contract is up? 10 mil also?
Kordell isn't comparable-that was back in the era when the Steelers all thought a strong defense and a strong run game would win SB's, and QB's didn't really matter. Just stick a guy in there that could throw the ball a bit. Don't waste draft picks on really good QB's.

That is the ONLY logical explanation for O'donnell, Tomczak, Miller, Graham, Kordell, and Maddox.
BTW, in your sig- shouldn't it say "O'Donnell, Tomczak, Miller, Brister, Maddox, Malone, Stoudt, + starting position = 0??

Steeldude
02-19-2011, 03:41 AM
Kordell isn't comparable-that was back in the era when the Steelers all thought a strong defense and a strong run game would win SB's, and QB's didn't really matter. Just stick a guy in there that could throw the ball a bit. Don't waste draft picks on really good QB's.

That is the ONLY logical explanation for O'donnell, Tomczak, Miller, Graham, Kordell, and Maddox.
BTW, in your sig- shouldn't it say "O'Donnell, Tomczak, Miller, Brister, Maddox, Malone, Stoudt, + starting position = 0??

why isn't he comparable? i am referring to giving kordell a raise after it was clear he was not a QB to lead a team anywhere or a player who deserved a raise at all. if QBs didn't matter then why give him a raise?

we did get to the SB with o'donnell. he was also a far better QB than the idiot kordell. tomczak, miller and stoudt didn't play long. malone sucked, but was clearly better than kordell, as was any person with a heartbeat. give kordell a #1 running and a #1 defense and it comes out to 0 every time. he was a cancer the steelers had to overcome with each game.

zulater
02-19-2011, 05:56 AM
i know, because the coaches were so right about kordell. what was i thinking?

i don't commend the steelers for tagging woodley and having to pay him 10 mil a year. that's too much for a player who disppears too often. so what does timmons get when his contract is up? 10 mil also?

Differrent coaching staff and player personell director Bud. Might as well be talking about the Vikings trade for Hershell Walker as much relevance as it has here.

Look no one's saying the Steelers are infallible, but they've got helluval lot more information than you or I have, and they don't just throw money around. They know the defensive play call, they know the players assignments, they have the game film, if their information is telling them that Woodley is worth franchising I'm going to defer to them over reactionary message board guy who thinks that any game an OLB doesn't get a sack in he completely dissapeared in.

Just the way I roll Steeldude, no offense intended.

LLT
02-19-2011, 06:22 AM
... if their information is telling them that Woodley is worth franchising I'm going to defer to them over reactionary message board guy who thinks that any game an OLB doesn't get a sack in he completely dissapeared in.



Ding Ding...we have a winner.

Much like those who say that Troy "dissapears" when he doesnt have an INT or a sack....never minding the fact that he covered center field and didnt allow a team to throw for over 15 yards all game.

zulater
02-19-2011, 06:40 AM
btw, they didn't give him an exclusve rights franchise tag like the Colts did with Manning. So other teams can negotiate with him and if one signs him the Steelers then would have the right to match the offer, or collect two first round draft picks from the team Woodley signs with, or work out a trade with that team for what both would consider fair compensation. The Steelers could also walk away from Lammar completely at any time before he signs the tender if they so choose.

It would have made no sense at all to just let him walk away and get nothing in return.

Chidi29
02-19-2011, 09:03 AM
We do drop our LB's into coverage all the time, unless the offense is playing max protect. Otherwise, you would see a RB, FB, or TE running free down the field all the time.
We don't drop ALL our LB's in coverage all the time. They vary depending on who is on the weakside, but if you watch, on every defensive passing play, we have at least 1, and often 2 LB's in coverage.

I should have specified although I thought it was implied. We don't drop our OLBs all the time. Pass rushing is still their #1 job.

Chidi29
02-19-2011, 09:04 AM
btw, they didn't give him an exclusve rights franchise tag like the Colts did with Manning. So other teams can negotiate with him and if one signs him the Steelers then would have the right to match the offer, or collect two first round draft picks from the team Woodley signs with, or work out a trade with that team for what both would consider fair compensation. The Steelers could also walk away from Lammar completely at any time before he signs the tender if they so choose.

It would have made no sense at all to just let him walk away and get nothing in return.

Rarely do teams hand out the exlclusive tag. Not that it matters anyway. Very rarely, if ever, has a team franchised a player and he ended up playing for a different team next year.

Unless there was a situation of a posion pill contract which while not illegal, is frowned upon and rarely done by teams. I don't rememer of a case since Nate Burleson.

X-Terminator
02-19-2011, 10:02 AM
Like most others here, I don't have a problem with them tagging Woodley so long as the final deal isn't for $10 million a year. Sorry to those who disagree, but he simply is not worth that kind of money. That is reserved for guys like Harrison who is consistent every game even if he's not getting sacks. Woodley does not have that kind of consistency. OK, he's had 10 sacks in each of his last 3 seasons...great. But he usually picks them up in spurts and has too many games where he's completely invisible. It's not all because of coverage - Harrison drops back in coverage a lot and it doesn't affect his game very much. So I hope they sit down and put together a reasonable deal so that Woodley is compensated for his past 3 seasons, but doesn't prevent them from addressing other, more glaring needs.

zulater
02-19-2011, 11:35 AM
Rarely do teams hand out the exlclusive tag. Not that it matters anyway. Very rarely, if ever, has a team franchised a player and he ended up playing for a different team next year. Unless there was a situation of a posion pill contract which while not illegal, is frowned upon and rarely done by teams. I don't rememer of a case since Nate Burleson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Allen

In February 2008, the Chiefs placed the franchise tag on Allen, giving him a one-year, $8.8 million salary for 2008.[


On April 22, 2008, the Chiefs traded Allen to the Minnesota Vikings. In exchange, the Vikings sent the Chiefs a first-round pick, which they used to select OT Branden Albert, and two third-round picks, and swapped sixth-round picks in the 2008 NFL Draft. The Vikings then signed Allen to a six-year contract, which at the time was the richest contract for a defensive player in NFL history.[9] Allen was due an $8 million roster bonus in 2010, per the six-year, US$72.36 million contract he signed with the Vikings, and his signing bonus was $15.5 million.


While not commonplace, it certainly has happened and in the right circumstances will again.

Woodley as a young player who's seen as an ascending talent could very easily draw the attention of several other teams who might see it as a wise investment to go with a proven commodity rather than the uncertainty of a draft choice if their need is for an elite edge rusher.

zulater
02-19-2011, 11:37 AM
Like most others here, I don't have a problem with them tagging Woodley so long as the final deal isn't for $10 million a year. Sorry to those who disagree, but he simply is not worth that kind of money. That is reserved for guys like Harrison who is consistent every game even if he's not getting sacks. Woodley does not have that kind of consistency. OK, he's had 10 sacks in each of his last 3 seasons...great. But he usually picks them up in spurts and has too many games where he's completely invisible. It's not all because of coverage - Harrison drops back in coverage a lot and it doesn't affect his game very much. So I hope they sit down and put together a reasonable deal so that Woodley is compensated for his past 3 seasons, but doesn't prevent them from addressing other, more glaring needs.

Woodley has 11 sacks in 7 career playoff games, he's never gone sackless in a playoff game.


on how the Packers minimized LB LaMarr Woodley’s impact)
( “I thought Woodley had a heck of a ballgame . I thought he applied pressure off our left edge the majority of the game. I’m not willing to concede that he didn’t play winning football.'

Tomlin singled Woodley out after the Super Bowl as a player who played at a high level.

I think the Steelers perception of Woodley is higher than yours.

I wish I could find a site that listed qb pressures, because I believe I read somewhere late in the season that Woodley led all Steelers in qb pressures by a significant margin. Making a qb throw a bad pass can be just as effective as a sack or even moreso if the pass is intercepted.

Chidi29
02-19-2011, 11:41 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Allen

In February 2008, the Chiefs placed the franchise tag on Allen, giving him a one-year, $8.8 million salary for 2008.[


On April 22, 2008, the Chiefs traded Allen to the Minnesota Vikings. In exchange, the Vikings sent the Chiefs a first-round pick, which they used to select OT Branden Albert, and two third-round picks, and swapped sixth-round picks in the 2008 NFL Draft. The Vikings then signed Allen to a six-year contract, which at the time was the richest contract for a defensive player in NFL history.[9] Allen was due an $8 million roster bonus in 2010, per the six-year, US$72.36 million contract he signed with the Vikings, and his signing bonus was $15.5 million.


While not commonplace, it certainly has happened and in the right circumstances will again.

Woodley as a young player who's seen as an ascending talent could very easily draw the attention of several other teams who might see it as a wise investment to go with a proven commodity rather than the uncertainty of a draft choice if their need is for an elite edge rusher.

Of course, that was through the Chiefs willingly trading Allen. Not the Vikings placing an offer, the Chiefs not matching, and the player signing to the other team.

Allen's situation could have happened had he gotten an exclusive tag.

zulater
02-19-2011, 11:52 AM
Of course, that was through the Chiefs willingly trading Allen. Not the Vikings placing an offer, the Chiefs not matching, and the player signing to the other team.

Allen's situation could have happened had he gotten an exclusive tag.

Yeah, I never said otherwise. My point is that by placing the franchise tag on Woodley all the Steelers are saying is that they aren't going to let him walk out the door for nothing as would probably be the case if they didn't designate him whatsoever, which is what several people seem to be suggesting they should have done.

Personally I hope and expect them to keep him, and in time I think they'll sign him to a fair and reasonable long term deal.

But what I didn't want, and am relieved by their actions they've assured wont happen, is for another Leon Searcy, Chad Brown situation in which we allowed an in their prime impact player to walk out the door for virtually zilch in return! ( outside of a compensatory pick, which probably would have come at the end of the 2nd or 3rd round)

zulater
02-19-2011, 11:58 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Cassel

In February 2009, the Patriots used their franchise tag on Cassel, extending him a one-year contract worth over $14 million, the largest one-year contract for an offensive player in NFL history.[2][3] Later that offseason, the Patriots made a trade which sent Cassel to the Chiefs,[4] who signed him to a 6 year, $62.7 million contract in July 2009.

Here's another example of what I was talking about. So that's the two out of the past 3 years teams have used the franchise tag to assure receiving value for a player that they otherwise would have got bubkus in return for.

zulater
02-19-2011, 12:34 PM
Of course, that was through the Chiefs willingly trading Allen. Not the Vikings placing an offer, the Chiefs not matching, and the player signing to the other team.

Allen's situation could have happened had he gotten an exclusive tag.

Actually it could have but probably never would have, because if he had been given an exclusive tag the Vikings wouldn't have had the ability to talk to Allen before making the trade and seeing if they could come to an agreement on contract terms first.

X-Terminator
02-19-2011, 12:54 PM
Woodley has 11 sacks in 7 career playoff games, he's never gone sackless in a playoff game.


on how the Packers minimized LB LaMarr Woodley’s impact)

Tomlin singled Woodley out after the Super Bowl as a player who played at a high level.

I think the Steelers perception of Woodley is higher than yours.

I wish I could find a site that listed qb pressures, because I believe I read somewhere late in the season that Woodley led all Steelers in qb pressures by a significant margin. Making a qb throw a bad pass can be just as effective as a sack or even moreso if the pass is intercepted.

It's not that I don't think Woodley is a good player. He most certainly is, and I never implied otherwise. To say that he's not consistent doesn't mean he's not a good player. I also recognize that he has been great in the postseason as well as late in the regular season. But what about the rest of the season? He is a notoriously slow starter, and in many games you barely notice that he's on the field. Is it too much to ask for a guy who wants a huge contract to bring it for more than half a season? I don't believe so. Again, he deserves a new contract that pays him well, but he is not worth $40 million guaranteed and certainly not more than Harrison, who is a DPOY and finished in the top 3 for the award again this season. That is all I am saying.