Steelers covet receiver in NFL draft; free-agent signings to help

[Steelerette]

Not really. Mike Wallace was a one-trick pony. Speed down the field. He did a lot of stuff there, but once defenses started compensating, coordinators started looking for him to develop his route tree, he became pretty normal. Yet, a smaller WR like Antonio Brown that does several things well has exploded. Brown lacks height. He had average speed. No real physical attribute to make him stand out, but he has good hands, is quick, runs excellent routes, and just grinds. I'll take that over a 1-trick guy any day.

In watching Evans, everything is outside the numbers. He is a guy that runs down the field and makes big plays. His shorter routes are stops and comebacks where he sells the deeper stuff. Seldom crosses. Seldom inside. Seldom runs outs. No hard breaking stuff because he does not come out of breaks well.

Evans is not Andre Johnson, who will burn you with any route you want him to run and does it with size and speed. He is not Megatron, who is bigger and faster than Evans. He plays a similar game, but while Evans has good speed, Megatron is a freak. Bigger, longer arms, more physical. That might be his best comparison, but will Evans be able to dominate like Megatron does? Dunno. Megatron can take the best CBs in the league and make them look like a donkey. Evans did not do that consistently in college. He struggled when he faced better corners.

Everyone wants a big WR. I just want one (or two) that can get open and make the catch.

I'm not even talking about a WR. I want Nix and his one trick is disrupting the line of scrimmage.

[Steelerette]

I'm looking for Terry Hawthorne to make a potential return visit to camp this year. He dropped to the 5th because of knees and concussion concern, didn't make the team because of knees, but if he's healthy and wants to try again, he'll be in training camp with some team or another.

[steelreserve]

Hoping a blue-chip LT falls,

One thing to point out about that. LT is probably the biggest red herring in the entire draft. Since it became a fad about a decade ago, it has been one of the biggest wastes of a high draft pick in existence.

Wha-wha-WHAT? Don't believe me? Take a look at every draft for the past 10 years, and tell me how the teams that took an offensive tackle in the top 10 are doing. They're terrible. You have the one exception, which is Seattle, who took Russell Okung at #6 in 2010, and then - Redskins, Vikings, Jets, Raiders, Dolphins, Cowboys, Jaguars, Browns, Cardinals, Rams, Bengals. Not one of them has been what you would call a successful team since making that pick.

Losers take an offensive linemen high in the first round. "Grrrr, we addressed the offensive line! You don't get credit for it because it's not glamorous, but grrrr, smart football move!" No, not a smart football move. You just passed up an opportunity for one of the best playmakers in the league, and instead burned up your draft pick on a low-return position.

*Note: Do not confuse this with "Left tackle doesn't matter." Of course it matters. Just not in the way that justifies a top-10 draft pick. Put it this way - take the difference between the best left tackle in the league and an average starting-quality NFL left tackle, and consider the impact it has on your football team overall. It makes a little bit of difference, but not nearly as much as a skill position player, and no difference at all if the rest of the pieces aren't already there. If you have an average left tackle, you do just fine. The only time it's a problem is when you have someone who downright can't do the job at all. That's not our problem, and in fact, we have three players who are an option for that position. If we took a left tackle in the first round, I would be PISSED. Probably the only position I'd be pissed off about more than WR.

(This is not aimed at you in particular, by the way. Really everyone, from the message board to the media "draft experts," who has hyped the position up so much that it's now the single most overvalued pick in the draft. We would have to have rocks in our head to join that club.)

I'm not even talking about a WR. I want Nix and his one trick is disrupting the line of scrimmage.

That's another idea I am behind 1,000%. You ask me, a HUGE part of our struggles on the defensive side has been the decline of the nose tackle position (and the defensive line in general). Having a GOOD nose tackle makes a tremendous difference, not only for the line but with a cascading effect through the whole defense. Try to play a 3-4 without one, and you're just faking it. We've been saying we need to plan for Hampton's replacement for a good 7 or 8 years, and here we are STILL saying that two years after his retirement. This is our best chance since we passed up Cody in the second round, and in this case, the player looks a lot better too. Say what you will about the draft value of a nose tackle; he's not going to last into the second round. My guess would be he doesn't get past Green Bay, who is losing three DTs. That would be a tremendous coup for them if he fell to them, and I'd just as soon not see it happen.

[Dwinsgames]

only 5 teams in the league gave up more pass plays over 40 yards than we did in 2013 , this problem will not fix itself we have to be proactive in doing so .... http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorysta...ualified=false

putting off drafting top tier talent to do so on def only prolongs the issue the longer you wait the longer it takes to fix it .....

I am not comfortable with the logic of loading our Offense up to score 40+ a game to keep pace with opponents philosophy while those high flying offenses win a lot of ball games BUT more often than not they fail to win when it matters most , look no further than the 2013 Broncos for an example of that point ...

you can go even further if you like and look at all the high flying offenses throughout history and then look at who took home the final prize the Lombardi trophy those years , most times whomever plays the better def wins the Lombardi , Def wins championships ...

Fix the def to championship level and keep pace with the Offense and we return to fight for Lombardi's ..Rev up the offense to be top of the hill and neglect the def and we end up being the 2015 version of the 2013 Broncos ....... the choice is really pretty clear cut IMO

[Steelerette]

1. Nix
2. Baptiste
3. Abbrederis
4. Skov
5. Drop the mic

[steelreserve]

Fix the def to championship level and keep pace with the Offense and we return to fight for Lombardi's ..Rev up the offense to be top of the hill and neglect the def and we end up being the 2015 version of the 2013 Broncos ....... the choice is really pretty clear cut IMO

More like the every year Chargers or Saints if you ask me. High-powered offenses are great until you have a bad day or you run into a better one, and there are already a lot of people playing that game.

The hard truth of it is, while we have a GOOD offense, I don't think it'll ever be the kind of "high-flying" offense that people are thinking of with Brady, Manning, Brees, etc. Ben is just not that kind of quarterback. He's definitely top-tier in talent, but that's not his game. When we try that precision high-speed, all-pass, dink-and-dunk style, it doesn't work very well.

Ben's strength is that he's great at running a REGULAR offense. A good game for us isn't being perpetually ready to strike on a 5-play, 90-yard drive that takes 1:20 off the clock. It's putting up 24 or 27 points while draining the life out of our opponents so it's an insurmountable advantage. This does not mean run the ball, run the ball, run the ball, by the way, for those who would be so confused. It means the kind of steady, methodical drives we have when we're playing well, and winning the field position battle, which usually comes along with that plus a little defense.

That's why I think if we tried to go full-on shootout style offense, it'd be a disaster for us. Even if everything worked out, we'd be fifth- or sixth-best at it. More likely I'd see us winding up in a place like the Chargers or the Lions, where you're always obviously a couple steps away from being a real threat, and you're up and down constantly from the changes you make trying to address it, only none of them are ever going to really fix it. That's a place I'd like to avoid being.

[Psycho Ward 86]

Not really. Mike Wallace was a one-trick pony. Speed down the field. He did a lot of stuff there, but once defenses started compensating, coordinators started looking for him to develop his route tree, he became pretty normal. Yet, a smaller WR like Antonio Brown that does several things well has exploded. Brown lacks height. He had average speed. No real physical attribute to make him stand out, but he has good hands, is quick, runs excellent routes, and just grinds. I'll take that over a 1-trick guy any day.

In watching Evans, everything is outside the numbers. He is a guy that runs down the field and makes big plays. His shorter routes are stops and comebacks where he sells the deeper stuff. Seldom crosses. Seldom inside. Seldom runs outs. No hard breaking stuff because he does not come out of breaks well.

Evans is not Andre Johnson, who will burn you with any route you want him to run and does it with size and speed. He is not Megatron, who is bigger and faster than Evans. He plays a similar game, but while Evans has good speed, Megatron is a freak. Bigger, longer arms, more physical. That might be his best comparison, but will Evans be able to dominate like Megatron does? Dunno. Megatron can take the best CBs in the league and make them look like a donkey. Evans did not do that consistently in college. He struggled when he faced better corners.

Everyone wants a big WR. I just want one (or two) that can get open and make the catch.

you didnt mention Evan's EXTREME combatative balls skills at all. by far the best of anyone in this draft, and a skill that no steelers pass catcher has had in excess for a really long time. evans can get open just fine and has fine hands. one of his concerns was that he was a little touchy in getting separation but watch the tape and a lot of times he literally pushed off a bit when he was wide open anyways. that should be easily correctable. 1-2 of evans "bad games" was due to being pulled out early. Im assuming the main game you are talking about is the Mizzou game. Well, manziel had a broken finger (injury of some sort i believe it was broken?) on his throwing hand the final 2 games of the season and evans as a result was also not as effective. the down games have some valid reasons, how about the great games? like against auburn and Bama, the 2 best teams in the nation? evans is the "big guy" we sorely need. if we go corner in the 1st, ill probably throw a fit if we dont get jordan matthews

[GBMelBlount]

Smokescreens. Or anti-smokescreens. Counter-smokescreens. Smokescreens for their smokescreens.

From now until the last pick is in, don't believe anything like this.

[Steelerette]

Poor Santonio. He was only building up a resistance to.. uh.. iocane powder.

[X-Terminator]

still trying to figure out why this is in this section of the forum when we have a draft forum /boggle

Point taken.

Thread moved to Draft Central.

[TMC]

One thing to point out about that. LT is probably the biggest red herring in the entire draft. Since it became a fad about a decade ago, it has been one of the biggest wastes of a high draft pick in existence.

Wha-wha-WHAT? Don't believe me? Take a look at every draft for the past 10 years, and tell me how the teams that took an offensive tackle in the top 10 are doing. They're terrible. You have the one exception, which is Seattle, who took Russell Okung at #6 in 2010, and then - Redskins, Vikings, Jets, Raiders, Dolphins, Cowboys, Jaguars, Browns, Cardinals, Rams, Bengals. Not one of them has been what you would call a successful team since making that pick.

Losers take an offensive linemen high in the first round. "Grrrr, we addressed the offensive line! You don't get credit for it because it's not glamorous, but grrrr, smart football move!" No, not a smart football move. You just passed up an opportunity for one of the best playmakers in the league, and instead burned up your draft pick on a low-return position.

*Note: Do not confuse this with "Left tackle doesn't matter." Of course it matters. Just not in the way that justifies a top-10 draft pick. Put it this way - take the difference between the best left tackle in the league and an average starting-quality NFL left tackle, and consider the impact it has on your football team overall. It makes a little bit of difference, but not nearly as much as a skill position player, and no difference at all if the rest of the pieces aren't already there. If you have an average left tackle, you do just fine. The only time it's a problem is when you have someone who downright can't do the job at all. That's not our problem, and in fact, we have three players who are an option for that position. If we took a left tackle in the first round, I would be PISSED. Probably the only position I'd be pissed off about more than WR.

(This is not aimed at you in particular, by the way. Really everyone, from the message board to the media "draft experts," who has hyped the position up so much that it's now the single most overvalued pick in the draft. We would have to have rocks in our head to join that club.)

You want to go back and count how many teams that draft a QB in the top 10 that never improve? Would that not make QB another "Red Herring"? Might as well start at 2000, nice even number. In 2001, it was Mike Vick, no championships. In 2002, it was David Carr and Joey Harrington. In 2003, it was Carson Palmer and Byron Leftwich. In 2004, it was Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers. Manning is the only one to win to this point. Then you have Alex Smith, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Andrew Luck, RGIII, and Ryan Tannehill. Only 1 Super Bowl champion in roughly 20 QBs taken.

So, would you not use the same analysis to state that QBs are not a needed commodity and teams can get by with just an average player? Of course you would not. Why? Because elite QBs make offenses go. And, elite LTs makes OLs better. They are tasked with eliminating the best pass rusher on the field each week. If the Steelers have a chance at landing an elite LT and pass, it could haunt them for a while, especially if Ben slows and is unable to escape pressure as easily, making him more of a pocket passer.

And, it is almost laughable that you throw out Beachum, Adams, and Gilbert as an "option for the position". Gilbert and Adams are struggling to be options at the RT position. The Steelers have brought in Seantrel Henderson for an interview. He is a RT only. Why would they do that if they had three LT options when one could easily handle the right side? The answer is simple, they have Beachum and two 300-pound turnstiles.

Kevin Colbert, Mike Tomlin, and the OL coaches have been at the pro days of Matthews, Robinson, and Lewan. Maybe they were just racking up frequent flier miles.

Finally, you do realize that Gilbert is in his final season with the Steelers? Well, unless you extend him. What do you think they should pay him? Five years, $25M? He has started every season since he was drafted. Adams contract runs through next season. They will either have to have a plan to replace/upgrade those stiffs or pay them. And, if they approach Gilbert this season, odds are they end up overpaying. If they do not approach him, you stand a chance of heading into the draft next year with a glaring need (and you give Adams more leverage).

All in all, if I have a chance to draft a top talent, like Matthews or Robinson, I do not piss it away thinking no continual bottom feeder that drafts them fails to turn it around. Ever think it could be the quality of the rest of the team? Nah.

[TMC]

you didnt mention Evan's EXTREME combatative balls skills at all. by far the best of anyone in this draft, and a skill that no steelers pass catcher has had in excess for a really long time. evans can get open just fine and has fine hands. one of his concerns was that he was a little touchy in getting separation but watch the tape and a lot of times he literally pushed off a bit when he was wide open anyways. that should be easily correctable. 1-2 of evans "bad games" was due to being pulled out early. Im assuming the main game you are talking about is the Mizzou game. Well, manziel had a broken finger (injury of some sort i believe it was broken?) on his throwing hand the final 2 games of the season and evans as a result was also not as effective. the down games have some valid reasons, how about the great games? like against auburn and Bama, the 2 best teams in the nation? evans is the "big guy" we sorely need. if we go corner in the 1st, ill probably throw a fit if we dont get jordan matthews

I am glad you brought up Alabama and Auburn. He played very well in those two games. Quick, who were the NFL caliber corners he faced? Against Auburn, he faced Mincey and Davis. They also played a shit load of zone coverages, giving him cushion and free releases. When they did decide to get in his grill, much less effective. Watch the film. The majority of his plays he had space given by scheme.

Alabama tried to man cover him, but Belue, Fulton, and Jones just are not skilled enough to do it. Too many times they completely missed the jam allowing Evans to get over the top. Too easy. In those two games, Evans had 566 of his 1394 yards. Do you realize that means in the other 11 games, he mustered 828 yards. And, how did he let Ross Cockrell of Duke limit him to 72 yards? The UTEP corner was in his grill all game, and he gave up a ton of height to Evans. LSU's corners did not shy away and he struggled.

Does Evans have good hands? Yep. Will he high point the football? Yep. Does he have some tools as an outside the numbers receiver? Yep. But, he struggles in press coverage. He is not a great route runner and will round routes to keep from scrubbing off speed. Many of his routes are down the field and stops or comebacks. He rarely works the middle. He does not come inside the numbers often. With Evans, it is feast or famine and I would be willing to bet there are more corners in the NFL that can get in his grill than he saw in college.

Plenty of big, edge receivers in this draft. The question is, will you get a Calvin Johnson or a Plaxico Burress or a James Hardy?

Finally, we really do not "need" a big WR. The Steelers won 2 Super Bowls with Hines Ward being the tallest WR. The thing is, Hines was money in the red zone. We need a scorer and it does not matter if he is 6'5" or 5'6".

[Steelerette]

Nobody's arguing that Evans isn't a good, impact player. I just don't feel it would be an appropriate use of our selection, especially if we neglect an opportunity to bring major improvement to the D-line or the secondary. If Dennard, Gilbert, Mosley, Nix, and even Lewan, are all off the board, and there's no chance to slide down a few spots... in that case sure pick him or Ebron.

But I'm really hoping for a D-back or a D-lineman to start things off.

[steelreserve]

You want to go back and count how many teams that draft a QB in the top 10 that never improve? Would that not make QB another "Red Herring"? Might as well start at 2000, nice even number. In 2001, it was Mike Vick, no championships. In 2002, it was David Carr and Joey Harrington. In 2003, it was Carson Palmer and Byron Leftwich. In 2004, it was Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers. Manning is the only one to win to this point. Then you have Alex Smith, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Andrew Luck, RGIII, and Ryan Tannehill. Only 1 Super Bowl champion in roughly 20 QBs taken.

So, would you not use the same analysis to state that QBs are not a needed commodity and teams can get by with just an average player? Of course you would not. Why? Because elite QBs make offenses go. And, elite LTs makes OLs better. They are tasked with eliminating the best pass rusher on the field each week. If the Steelers have a chance at landing an elite LT and pass, it could haunt them for a while, especially if Ben slows and is unable to escape pressure as easily, making him more of a pocket passer.

And, it is almost laughable that you throw out Beachum, Adams, and Gilbert as an "option for the position". Gilbert and Adams are struggling to be options at the RT position. The Steelers have brought in Seantrel Henderson for an interview. He is a RT only. Why would they do that if they had three LT options when one could easily handle the right side? The answer is simple, they have Beachum and two 300-pound turnstiles.

Kevin Colbert, Mike Tomlin, and the OL coaches have been at the pro days of Matthews, Robinson, and Lewan. Maybe they were just racking up frequent flier miles.

Finally, you do realize that Gilbert is in his final season with the Steelers? Well, unless you extend him. What do you think they should pay him? Five years, $25M? He has started every season since he was drafted. Adams contract runs through next season. They will either have to have a plan to replace/upgrade those stiffs or pay them. And, if they approach Gilbert this season, odds are they end up overpaying. If they do not approach him, you stand a chance of heading into the draft next year with a glaring need (and you give Adams more leverage).

All in all, if I have a chance to draft a top talent, like Matthews or Robinson, I do not piss it away thinking no continual bottom feeder that drafts them fails to turn it around. Ever think it could be the quality of the rest of the team? Nah.

The answer of how many teams improve after drafting a QB in the top 10 is not "none of them." You said it yourself; the QB makes the offense go; an LT makes the OL better. The QB is the key to the entire offense; the LT helps one part of one element of the offense. Plenty of teams win championships without a great left tackle; almost none win it without a good quarterback. Why would you draft an offensive tackle in the range where you can normally find a difference-maker on a much higher level? Because it's been overhyped, that's why.

I wouldn't discount Adams and Gilbert yet. They were high draft picks for a reason, and I am suspicious that the reason they're both still struggling is that we had an OL coach with shit for brains. Essentially they're both still rookies in terms of player development. If Munchak doesn't make a difference, then maybe it's time to call them busts, but not until then. In either case, we got by when they were in the game, even if it was barely getting by. You don't need great. You need not Jonathan-Scott-bad-that-ruins-every-single-play-like-a-glitch-in-Tecmo-Bowl bad. I think we're at that level, and certainly good enough that we don't need to spend ANOTHER high draft pick on the line. Everyone cannot be a first-round draft pick.

As for the contract situation - it's the NFL. Practically everyone's contract runs out in the next couple of years. Not much to talk about there; just business as usual, and yeah, we'll have some decisions to make like always. I would hate to throw away a chance to address some real problems on our team in order to "fix" something that isn't one.

[TMC]

The answer of how many teams improve after drafting a QB in the top 10 is not "none of them." You said it yourself; the QB makes the offense go; an LT makes the OL better. The QB is the key to the entire offense; the LT helps one part of one element of the offense. Plenty of teams win championships without a great left tackle; almost none win it without a good quarterback. Why would you draft an offensive tackle in the range where you can normally find a difference-maker on a much higher level? Because it's been overhyped, that's why.

I wouldn't discount Adams and Gilbert yet. They were high draft picks for a reason, and I am suspicious that the reason they're both still struggling is that we had an OL coach with shit for brains. Essentially they're both still rookies in terms of player development. If Munchak doesn't make a difference, then maybe it's time to call them busts, but not until then. In either case, we got by when they were in the game, even if it was barely getting by. You don't need great. You need not Jonathan-Scott-bad-that-ruins-every-single-play-like-a-glitch-in-Tecmo-Bowl bad. I think we're at that level, and certainly good enough that we don't need to spend ANOTHER high draft pick on the line. Everyone cannot be a first-round draft pick.

As for the contract situation - it's the NFL. Practically everyone's contract runs out in the next couple of years. Not much to talk about there; just business as usual, and yeah, we'll have some decisions to make like always. I would hate to throw away a chance to address some real problems on our team in order to "fix" something that isn't one.

Wait a minute, you stated that every team drafting a LT was terrible. Now, it is teams that drafted a QB improved. Is it they improved? Is improvement all you need to justify the argument or are you changing the argument?

The Panthers finished the 2002 season at 7-9. They drafted Jordan Gross in the 2003 draft, went 11-5 and played in the Super Bowl. They improved. The Jets took Ferguson in the 2006 NFL draft. They were 4-12 in 2005 and went to 10-6. The Browns were 4-12 in 2006 and selected Joe Thomas in 2007. They went 10-6 in 2007. The Bengals were 4-11-1 and the next draft they took Andre Smith and went 10-6 his rookie season. The Jags record improved after taking Eugene Monroe. Both the Redskins and Seahawks records improved after taking Okung and Williams. Cowboys improved after taking Smith. Vikings went from 3-13 to 10-6 after drafting Kalil. Chiefs drafted Fisher and went from 2-14 to 11-5. Jags also improved from 2012 to 2013.

So, is your argument that the teams are improving? So, your answer to how many teams improve after drafting an OT in the first would also not be "none of them".

And, you draft a LT in the top 10 because he plays the hardest position on your offensive line. He keeps your MULTI-MILLION dollar QB from taking blindside shots that can end his career. As for those playmakers, when was the last time the Steelers won a Super Bowl with a top 10 CB? WR? RB? NT? DE? Hell, any position? In fact, their game changing QB was not a top 10 pick. Neither was Tom Brady. In fact, name the last 2 teams that won a Super Bowl after drafting in the top 10 the previous 5 seasons (I asked for 2 because Seattle is the easy one).

The top QBs in the NFL, only 1 was drafted in the top 10. Aaron Rodgers was not. Tom Brady was not. Drew Brees was not. Roethlisberger was not. Russell Wilson was not. Kapernick. So, while those are very good QBs, they are not top 10 draft picks. Again, red herring. By your own flawed analysis, you should not draft a QB in the top 10. I wonder how many other positions fit in that mold. Well, we know interior OL is one. TEs is probably another. I bet we can build a pretty long list of positions where top 10 draft picks fail to win championships. Maybe it is the caliber of player at that position....OR, maybe it is because the rest of that team blew chunks and one position cannot overcome the vortex of suckitude that placed them in the top 10.

Have you ever thought that the reason Adams and Gilbert suck is because the guy failed to coach them up is also the guy that said "these are the guys I want". So, you think that maybe he has the innate ability to spot talent but lacks the ability to coach it up. What if he lacks the ability to spot talent too? I know, just back burner fixing that OL one more season. Why throw your brand new OL coach that everyone loves a bone. Screw him. Let him make sugar out of shit. Odd that the poor OL coach seemed to coach up DeCastro and Beachum. Did not seem to do too bad with Foster either.

And, if the contract situation for practically everyone runs out in the next couple of years, then how can you "fix" the defense. Would they not be seeing players contracts run out creating more holes on defense? Maybe, just maybe, instead of trying to "fix" things by filling perceived holes, maybe they should simply draft the most talented player available regardless of position and fill holes via free agency. Nah, always better to force the fit.

[steelreserve]

What I really think is that drafting an offensive lineman with a top-10 pick is a foolish move, and it's no coincidence that the teams who tend to do so are mostly foolish franchises that rarely have sustained success. Sure, some of them have had their temporary fluctuations after taking an LT - after all, if you're drafting in the top 10, it's hard to get noticeably worse - but as a group, the trend is than none of them ever win shit, mostly they just miss the playoffs two-thirds of the time, and people are not praising the sage wisdom of the front office so much as demanding they be fired.

You want to argue over what happened the exact following year, fine. The 2008 Bengals, 2010 Cowboys, and 2005 Jets were missing their starting quarterbacks the year they got the top-10 pick, and got them back the same year they drafted the left tackle. The 2006 Browns and 2011 Vikings changed to rookie quarterbacks midway through their shitty seasons and the next year they weren't rookies. The Chiefs changed QBs AND coaches last year. The Jaguars "improved" mostly because you can't get worse than 2-14, so I guess 4-12 counts ... notice that all of their wins also came after they changed quarterbacks. We could nitpick over this all day, but it seems pretty likely there's another explanation besides the rookie left tackle singlehandedly making the difference between 2-14 and the playoffs.

MY point is that these teams are losers; they make loser moves like blowing high draft picks on an offensive tackle, they have their ups and downs but ultimately still wind up as losers. It's a loser move.

I don't really know where you're going with the top-10 QB argument; that was your thing, and if you're trying to argue that a good QB is unimportant to winning, in the same post where you argue more than once that a good QB is critical to winning, then .. good luck? Are you trying to argue that more QBs are busts in the top 10? No? What, then? I get that it was a rhetorical point, but it wasn't a good one.

Protecting your star QB from taking "blindside shots that can end his career" - LOL, please. Can you please tell me when that's happened this century? Fear tactic that people use to justify their own overvaluation of linemen. And I didn't say "put a terrible left tackle in there," I said "you'd be fine with an average one." If only an All-Pro tackle can protect QBs from these bolts of lighting that constantly get by all the other starting tackles, it's a wonder more than 2 or 3 QBs are left standing at the end of the year.

Bottom line, you're fine with an average left tackle, and it's so overvalued I'm amazed we would even consider it.

[Dwinsgames]

I will say only this , when drafting in the top 10 its hard to do anything right even if you do everything right ....

reason being this is a win and win now league , no patience by owners to stick with coaches and GMs , so while you might make all the right moves half the players you picked won't make any real impact because the next regime runs a scheme in which you are a square peg they try and force into their round hole then they release or trade you for pennies on the dollar they originally paid ....

and they continue to rebuild with a new coach and new GM the next year , and a year later they are doing it all over again rinse repeat until the management turnstile quits turning

[Psycho Ward 86]

I am glad you brought up Alabama and Auburn. He played very well in those two games. Quick, who were the NFL caliber corners he faced? Against Auburn, he faced Mincey and Davis. They also played a shit load of zone coverages, giving him cushion and free releases. When they did decide to get in his grill, much less effective. Watch the film. The majority of his plays he had space given by scheme.

Alabama tried to man cover him, but Belue, Fulton, and Jones just are not skilled enough to do it. Too many times they completely missed the jam allowing Evans to get over the top. Too easy. In those two games, Evans had 566 of his 1394 yards. Do you realize that means in the other 11 games, he mustered 828 yards. And, how did he let Ross Cockrell of Duke limit him to 72 yards? The UTEP corner was in his grill all game, and he gave up a ton of height to Evans. LSU's corners did not shy away and he struggled.

Does Evans have good hands? Yep. Will he high point the football? Yep. Does he have some tools as an outside the numbers receiver? Yep. But, he struggles in press coverage. He is not a great route runner and will round routes to keep from scrubbing off speed. Many of his routes are down the field and stops or comebacks. He rarely works the middle. He does not come inside the numbers often. With Evans, it is feast or famine and I would be willing to bet there are more corners in the NFL that can get in his grill than he saw in college.

Plenty of big, edge receivers in this draft. The question is, will you get a Calvin Johnson or a Plaxico Burress or a James Hardy?

Finally, we really do not "need" a big WR. The Steelers won 2 Super Bowls with Hines Ward being the tallest WR. The thing is, Hines was money in the red zone. We need a scorer and it does not matter if he is 6'5" or 5'6".

All valid points. All i have left to say is that our offense, and specifically our red zone offense has been very average for quite a while now. Plenty of statistics all over the net to back that up. I really want that changed and i really want to see what Ben can do when he finally has a good O-line, a strong RB corp, and a loaded pass catching crew surrounding him. I feel like people blindly just say Ben has improved when he's kind of sort of about the same from year to year, but i think adding an evans or a matthews would really complete the puzzle. Its not always a matter of need imo. Sometimes turning what should be a strength, into something really strong can be something to behold as well. Also, remember that Mike Evans is part of this massive group of sophomores declaring for the NFL draft. He is extremely young and theres a great chance he's just getting warmed up.

Although after checking the tape for the millionth time on dennard and reading this: http://spartannation.com/2013/12/20/...-draft-report/

im changing my vote to Dennard with our 1st pick if he's there. truly remarkable stuff he's accomplished

- - - Updated - - -

You want to go back and count how many teams that draft a QB in the top 10 that never improve? Would that not make QB another "Red Herring"? Might as well start at 2000, nice even number. In 2001, it was Mike Vick, no championships. In 2002, it was David Carr and Joey Harrington. In 2003, it was Carson Palmer and Byron Leftwich. In 2004, it was Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers. Manning is the only one to win to this point. Then you have Alex Smith, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Andrew Luck, RGIII, and Ryan Tannehill. Only 1 Super Bowl champion in roughly 20 QBs taken.

So, would you not use the same analysis to state that QBs are not a needed commodity and teams can get by with just an average player? Of course you would not. Why? Because elite QBs make offenses go. And, elite LTs makes OLs better. They are tasked with eliminating the best pass rusher on the field each week. If the Steelers have a chance at landing an elite LT and pass, it could haunt them for a while, especially if Ben slows and is unable to escape pressure as easily, making him more of a pocket passer.

And, it is almost laughable that you throw out Beachum, Adams, and Gilbert as an "option for the position". Gilbert and Adams are struggling to be options at the RT position. The Steelers have brought in Seantrel Henderson for an interview. He is a RT only. Why would they do that if they had three LT options when one could easily handle the right side? The answer is simple, they have Beachum and two 300-pound turnstiles.

Kevin Colbert, Mike Tomlin, and the OL coaches have been at the pro days of Matthews, Robinson, and Lewan. Maybe they were just racking up frequent flier miles.

Finally, you do realize that Gilbert is in his final season with the Steelers? Well, unless you extend him. What do you think they should pay him? Five years, $25M? He has started every season since he was drafted. Adams contract runs through next season. They will either have to have a plan to replace/upgrade those stiffs or pay them. And, if they approach Gilbert this season, odds are they end up overpaying. If they do not approach him, you stand a chance of heading into the draft next year with a glaring need (and you give Adams more leverage).

All in all, if I have a chance to draft a top talent, like Matthews or Robinson, I do not piss it away thinking no continual bottom feeder that drafts them fails to turn it around. Ever think it could be the quality of the rest of the team? Nah.

We've invested so many high picks in O-linemen in recent years and all of them are very young and just received the gift of the best O-line coach on the planet. We need to give that investment a chance to grow instead of using more top dollar picks to quite possibly overload a position when it could be used somewhere else (my vouching of mike evans is different from this because having more than 2 receivers on the field at a time is far more frequent than having more than 2 tackles on the field at a time for situations such as an unbalanced line formation).

[LLT]

Nobody's arguing that Evans isn't a good, impact player. I just don't feel it would be an appropriate use of our selection, especially if we neglect an opportunity to bring major improvement to the D-line or the secondary. If Dennard, Gilbert, Mosley, Nix, and even Lewan, are all off the board, and there's no chance to slide down a few spots... in that case sure pick him or Ebron.

But I'm really hoping for a D-back or a D-lineman to start things off.

Unlikely Ebron makes it past the Bills....and if Evans makes it past the Bucs, I still think the Rams grab him before our pick.

[Mojouw]

LT, pass rusher, and QB are the 3 most important positions in the NFL, at least the way things are played currently. There is a reason that Ogden, Pace, and Boselli, were all cornerstones of their franchises and a big key to their success. Sure, there needed to be a ton of players around them, but they were all viewed as critical foundational pieces of building those 3 teams. All 3 of which went on a run of success.

Elway didn't win a championship until the Broncos improved the team around him. It isn't Joe Thomas' fault that for most of his career the Cleveland front office has been the gang who can't shoot straight.

Plus draft value is a relative thing. Maybe OT's are overvalued and should be picked lower in the first round. But if you don't get one early in the 1st round, guess what -- you are stuck with the Gilberts, and Adams of the world. Hell, this team has been on a quixotic search for a viable left tackle basically since Marvel Smith left town. They have never invested a 1st round pick on the position. Starks worked out, although he was never as good as we all believed, it was just that he was so much better than the terrible alternatives.

Also, it has been talked about that their are too many "busts" at OT to justify a high pick. That is because teams are desperate to get impact and scheme changing talent at LT, QB, and DE/OLB. In their desperation, they over-draft players and then these players under-perform versus expectations and are "busts".

The lack of a LT, well any line at all, ruined David Carr. In fact, the lack of good offensive line play likely explains a # of the "busts" at QB.

If one of the top tackle prospects falls to the Steelers this year in the draft, there should, at least, be a serious conversation in the room before the card is turned in. Plus a LT pick (let us, for the sake of argument, assume the pick works out) would improve multiple positions. Beachum could move inside to guard, making Foster a really good back-up, or he could shift to RT and stabilize that position, making Adams and Gilbert great depth options for the invariable dozen or so injuries along the line each year.

[TMC]

What I really think is that drafting an offensive lineman with a top-10 pick is a foolish move, and it's no coincidence that the teams who tend to do so are mostly foolish franchises that rarely have sustained success. Sure, some of them have had their temporary fluctuations after taking an LT - after all, if you're drafting in the top 10, it's hard to get noticeably worse - but as a group, the trend is than none of them ever win shit, mostly they just miss the playoffs two-thirds of the time, and people are not praising the sage wisdom of the front office so much as demanding they be fired.

You want to argue over what happened the exact following year, fine. The 2008 Bengals, 2010 Cowboys, and 2005 Jets were missing their starting quarterbacks the year they got the top-10 pick, and got them back the same year they drafted the left tackle. The 2006 Browns and 2011 Vikings changed to rookie quarterbacks midway through their shitty seasons and the next year they weren't rookies. The Chiefs changed QBs AND coaches last year. The Jaguars "improved" mostly because you can't get worse than 2-14, so I guess 4-12 counts ... notice that all of their wins also came after they changed quarterbacks. We could nitpick over this all day, but it seems pretty likely there's another explanation besides the rookie left tackle singlehandedly making the difference between 2-14 and the playoffs.

MY point is that these teams are losers; they make loser moves like blowing high draft picks on an offensive tackle, they have their ups and downs but ultimately still wind up as losers. It's a loser move.

I don't really know where you're going with the top-10 QB argument; that was your thing, and if you're trying to argue that a good QB is unimportant to winning, in the same post where you argue more than once that a good QB is critical to winning, then .. good luck? Are you trying to argue that more QBs are busts in the top 10? No? What, then? I get that it was a rhetorical point, but it wasn't a good one.

Protecting your star QB from taking "blindside shots that can end his career" - LOL, please. Can you please tell me when that's happened this century? Fear tactic that people use to justify their own overvaluation of linemen. And I didn't say "put a terrible left tackle in there," I said "you'd be fine with an average one." If only an All-Pro tackle can protect QBs from these bolts of lighting that constantly get by all the other starting tackles, it's a wonder more than 2 or 3 QBs are left standing at the end of the year.

Bottom line, you're fine with an average left tackle, and it's so overvalued I'm amazed we would even consider it.

Actually, the point is pretty much the same, whether it is a LT, QB, CB, NT, or any other position. Teams that draft in the top 10 do so because they lack talent at multiple positions, usually have a great void of depth, and one player, be it a QB or LT or any other position is not enough to pull them into the playoffs. Period. So, your analysis of the value of LTs based on your theory is flawed. I used the QB scenario to point that out because everyone knows that this is a QB driven league, yet of the 20 or so drafted since 2000, only a couple make the playoffs and only 1 has won a Super Bowl. Why? Because even the most valued position on the entire team is not enough to take a terrible team and make them good ALONE.

The fact that you point out other moves were made with those teams improving just backs that up. But, it does not detract from the fact that adding a LT did not hold them at terrible. They improved.

And, I hope you are not stating that Cleveland's OL did not improve when Joe Thomas was added. He has been a fixture for them at LT since being drafted. Trent Williams locks down the left side of the Washington line. They are not losing because of poor LT play.

And, the Steelers are not drafting in the top 10. What about Ryan Clady? He certainly helped the Broncos. Duane Brown helped the Texans. There are plenty of rookie LTs that step in and help solidify an offensive line.

Furthermore, the Steelers have actually built a fairly solid interior offensive line. Their struggles come from the tackle positions. In fact, in many instances, they are holding TEs in and having them block the DEs just to help the OTs. So, instead of pass blocking with 5 guys, the Steelers have went to 6, 7, and sometimes 8 players and that is not to handle jailbreak blitz situations, that is to control 4-5 rushers.

You want weapons on offense? How about using Heath Miller as a receiver instead of a blocker? What about using a 2nd TE as a receiver? What about your RB? That is up to 3 more weapons IF your OL can block.

As for allowing the all-world coach to discover the talent, again, Beachum seemed to come around pretty well under the old coaching. Why did Beachum do so well and Adams/Gilbert struggle? Because Beachum is a more natural talent at LT. Shit, Adams cannot beat Gilbert out for the RT spot. Neither can beat out Beachum for the LT spot. And people want to try Gilbert and Adams at LT? If that is the case, maybe they should use the first round pick on a QB, might need 5-6 to make it through a season.

Not only does a great OL help the passing game, it will also help Bell/Blount in the running game. For all the help we need on the defensive side (even the front seven), we could solidify the OL as well.

[TMC]

Let me also state this, does anyone want to keep Mike Munchak after this season? Do you think that will happen by giving him this group of offensive linemen and expecting him to work miracles?

And, am I the only one that thinks Munchak has already watched the film of the current group to evaluate the talent? I would assume he has. I would also assume that since he has already been at the Pro Days of Matthews, Robinson, and Lewan, he did not like what he saw.

Lastly, not about trading away draft picks to get into the top 10, but if a guy like Robinson or Matthews or maybe even Lewan slides to #15, he damn sure has to be a consideration. You are talking about locking down the LT spot for a decade. When you add that to DeCastro, Pouncey, and yes, I retain Beachum because I think that kid can play anywhere on the line, then you have 4 of your 5 starting OL for, at a minimum, 5 seasons and 3 of them for 8-10.

Let me also add, there are two positions where premium players rarely hit the market, they are QBs and LTs. Elite WRs and high end corners are on the market every year. Teams do not often like guys like Branden Albert make it to the bidding war. This year was unusual and I would have much rather spent the $7M on a guy like Veldheer, but it did not happen.

[SteelMember]

If the Steelers should buck the trend and go defense with their 1st pick, I hope it's Dennard. Corner is a big need and it's been ages since we had some top tier talent out there at the CB position. Let's face it. Ike is the best we have, and he's not what he used to be. Even he understands that.

If they stay with the trend and go Offense, I would rather them go OT with Lewan (if available, but would not reach past top #3 rated Robinson, Matthews, Lewan), OR TE Ebron before I would go with a wideout. I think the Offense would be better served with either of those positions before a WR. We've had success with later round WR's. Not so much with CB's.

[Steelerette]

Munchak is the reason I had Lewan in one of my mocks. I'm not sure I like the idea of selecting Lewan; out of the guys we already have we're sure to find at least a rock solid RT. Actually I'm very very happy with our situation at LG, C, RG, and RT, so is Lewan sure to be an improvement at LT for us? It's hard to say. But if somehow Matthews falls to us, you almost have to take him. I'm just not expecting it to happen is all.

[TMC]

Munchak is the reason I had Lewan in one of my mocks. I'm not sure I like the idea of selecting Lewan; out of the guys we already have we're sure to find at least a rock solid RT. Actually I'm very very happy with our situation at LG, C, RG, and RT, so is Lewan sure to be an improvement at LT for us? It's hard to say. But if somehow Matthews falls to us, you almost have to take him. I'm just not expecting it to happen is all.

I am not a Lewan fan. The only way I go OL in the first, by some odd swing of the draft, is if Matthews or Robinson fall. In fact, those may be the only two offensive players I would draft at #15. I realize I am in the minority and many love Ebron, Watkins, and Evans, but all three scare the hell out of me. All three have some issues with their game that I just do not know if they can overcome at the next level. IMO, all will be feast or famine. Either you hit big or they bust out.

So, unless it is Robinson or Matthews, sign me up for a cornerback. To be honest, I would also not mind if they traded back. I know there are some players others covet, but I would rather have a pick in the 20s and the extra picks that come with it. Talk is the Browns may want a QB but might not want to spend the 4th pick on a QB. If they wanted to bounce back up, giving up #26 and #35, I would be all for it. You could still land a guy like Fuller at 26 and then back it up with another player at #35.

I like that idea a lot better. Just not too settled with the offensive "playmakers" at the top end of this draft. Too many things on film that make me wonder if they will become the pros everyone thinks they will be.

[TMC]

Let me state this about Ebron, because I read an article today comparing him to Vernon Davis (which is pretty laughable), but Ebron cannot block for shit. He is a WR that plays TE. He has a ton of work to do to become a complete TE. He just is not physical at all. Davis was an elite receiver. He was not a polished blocker, but he got after it. He competed. Tenacious. Ebron is hot and cold. Sometimes he fires off and makes good initial contact, but he does get shed. In many instances he lacks power to hold and can get pushed around.

And, people have to remember it took Vernon Davis several years to develop. His best season in his first three was 509 receiving yards. Meh, not sure that is what I want in the middle of the first. Really not sure if that is what I want to replace Heath Miller.

I am hoping against hope that Evans, Watkins, Ebron, and 4 QBs go in the top 14.

[st33lersguy]

Let me state this about Ebron, because I read an article today comparing him to Vernon Davis (which is pretty laughable), but Ebron cannot block for shit. He is a WR that plays TE. He has a ton of work to do to become a complete TE. He just is not physical at all. Davis was an elite receiver. He was not a polished blocker, but he got after it. He competed. Tenacious. Ebron is hot and cold. Sometimes he fires off and makes good initial contact, but he does get shed. In many instances he lacks power to hold and can get pushed around.

And, people have to remember it took Vernon Davis several years to develop. His best season in his first three was 509 receiving yards. Meh, not sure that is what I want in the middle of the first. Really not sure if that is what I want to replace Heath Miller.

I am hoping against hope that Evans, Watkins, Ebron, and 4 QBs go in the top 14.

This presents a pretty bleak picture of Ebron. What is worse is that not a word was mentioned about the fact that he drops passes like Jeremy Stevens. His drop rate is appallingly over 10%

[Psycho Ward 86]

Let me also state this, does anyone want to keep Mike Munchak after this season? Do you think that will happen by giving him this group of offensive linemen and expecting him to work miracles?

And, am I the only one that thinks Munchak has already watched the film of the current group to evaluate the talent? I would assume he has. I would also assume that since he has already been at the Pro Days of Matthews, Robinson, and Lewan, he did not like what he saw.

Lastly, not about trading away draft picks to get into the top 10, but if a guy like Robinson or Matthews or maybe even Lewan slides to #15, he damn sure has to be a consideration. You are talking about locking down the LT spot for a decade. When you add that to DeCastro, Pouncey, and yes, I retain Beachum because I think that kid can play anywhere on the line, then you have 4 of your 5 starting OL for, at a minimum, 5 seasons and 3 of them for 8-10.

Let me also add, there are two positions where premium players rarely hit the market, they are QBs and LTs. Elite WRs and high end corners are on the market every year. Teams do not often like guys like Branden Albert make it to the bidding war. This year was unusual and I would have much rather spent the $7M on a guy like Veldheer, but it did not happen.

Yes, absolutely i want to keep munchak. Saying he needs to work miracles on this O-line is extreme hyperbole. I am normally very harsh on our O-line but even i recognize that our interior line is very good. Solid? Really? You think our interior line is solid? How many teams can say 2 out of 3 of their interior linemen are probowlers or playing like pro bowlers? And although "solid" is an abused word, ramon foster has been just that for us the last couple years. Not a great athlete, maybe a bit of a burden if we try the ZBS again, but he's solid. Beachum did well at LT. Why would you be so eager at the chance to upgrade a position that is already doing well when we could use upgrades at CB, WR, DE, and ILB far more?

Theres a lot you can infer from visits during the offseason but theres also a lot of smokescreen. The fact that Munchak visited the top 3 LT's in this draft is most likely just due diligence. Id be damned if the scouts and coaches werent covering ALL of their bases for every draft. Wouldnt you say the same? You have to be ready for anything. Hell, it could even be both a smokescreen and due diligence. Making teams drafting behind us anxious about the possibility of us drafting a falling top LT could force them to trade up to our spot, and thats something we could greatly benefit from.

I dont understand why you would give up on costly investments like marcus gilbert and mike adams when they are so young and are about to be coached by the best. Both were highly touted coming out of college. Gilbert was a projected 2nd-3rd round pick. Adams was a projected 1st-2nd round pick. You want to give up on draft picks that high already when we have the perfect man to prime them into something worthy? i sure dont. If we draft on elite LT and have beachum man the other tackle spot, what if all 4 of those tackles develop into good linemen? Well shit, that sure was a waste of two 2nd round draft picks (gilbert, adams). Let the investment grow.