Burns vs. Jackson

[tube517]

Did everyone know that Will Gay has played in 187 straight games.......and he let me wear his Super Bowl ring.....for 30 seconds.

Nice.

Big Play Willie Gay has more career sacks than Jarvis Jones.

[Steeldude]

That's on tape once that I can think of - or at least on tape that has been pointed out around here.

Most of the rest of the time Burns is either trying to tackle or wandering in the wilderness attempting to understand what his run support assignment is. However, when he eventually stumbles into that assignment, he usually tosses his body in there as a willing tackler.

Once is all it takes. I realize you are content with poor effort and deliberate lack of effort, but not everyone agrees. Burns gave up on a tackle attempt in the Jags' game also. But hey, that's ok because he is just a toddler. It's not like he is in his 20's.

Since you guys are still whining about Jones. Explain how he received the starting position each season.

[Hawkman]

Nice.

Big Play Willie Gay has more career sacks than Jarvis Jones.

He thought about returning that Int for a td to tie or break a Steelers record, but I think someone said "get your ass on the ground "...... then he pops up and gets smacked anyway. Bungles needed about 70 more yards of penalties.

[teegre]

I was 100% in the Artie Burns camp (and was secretly glad when WJIII was drafted before the Steelers could get him).

Currently, it looks like a coin flip, because as stated above WJIII played very well against AB. And, as discussed before that draft, WJII was/is the more ready to play NOW; whereas, Burns has the higher ceiling.

[Mojouw]

Once is all it takes. I realize you are content with poor effort and deliberate lack of effort, but not everyone agrees. Burns gave up on a tackle attempt in the Jags' game also. But hey, that's ok because he is just a toddler. It's not like he is in his 20's.

Since you guys are still whining about Jones. Explain how he received the starting position each season.

If teams refused to start every player who didn't give maximum effort even once - then the league would have to fold up tomorrow.

Like you realize that complaining about the effort and commitment level of players is totally legitimate and should be welcomed, but you have to see that some of your statements are simply so extreme as to have no impact, right?

You literally just argued that any one who gives up on a single play ever and that is their only mistake should be barred from starting in the NFL. Like just think about that for a second.

[st33lersguy]

We as a fanbase had to suffer through Antwon Burnt starting the entire year only two years ago, yet people want to trash Artie Burns as a player because he "refuses to tackle"

[teegre]

If teams refused to start every player who didn't give maximum effort even once - then the league would have to fold up tomorrow.

Like you realize that complaining about the effort and commitment level of players is totally legitimate and should be welcomed, but you have to see that some of your statements are simply so extreme as to have no impact, right?

You literally just argued that no one who gives up on a single player ever and that is their only mistake should be barred from starting in the NFL. Like just think about that for a second.

Insert the James Harrison special teams story (from the last thread about this same topic).

BENCH JAMES HARRISON FOR LIFE!!!

[Mojouw]

This really has no place here, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. For all those who want to consign under-performing and struggling younger players to the bench, I have one question.

How are you going to make the cap work?

"Star" players - the ones that most teams seem to be building SB champions around - cost between 10-25 million per season. Lately teams have needed anywhere between 1-4 of those guys to get it done.

"Vet" players - those that can provide a solid and sometimes spectacular presence in your line-up - these guys usually get 4-7 million per year.

FA signings on second or third contracts - need a few of those to wall-paper over the cracks in a roster -- these guys cost 5-8 million per year at least.

The rest of a modern NFL roster is filled with vet minimum guys and players on rookie contracts. Read "cheap labor". At least 6 of these guys are going to be needed to start at any one time to make the overall cap structure work.

As a result, like it or not, draft picks have to be almost immediately elevated to the starting line-up. On field mistakes in effort, execution, and assignment integrity have to be tolerated. Because who the hell else are teams going to find to do the job for the small contract dollars players in the first 3-5 years of their rookie deals are doing it for?

This is the inescapable reality of modern salary-cap era football. No more "Seasoning" guys on the bench for 3 years. It just can't work from a cap dollars perspective.

[SteelMayhem72]

No way in hell i would bench burns...just want him to be more aggressive tackling

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

[Hawkman]

Wow, I leave for a few minutes.........all I was trying to do was keep people from Gay bashing.....(trying to work that in forever). Great picture of me, hanging out with Will Gay and Ike Taylor on a golf cart at the James Farrior Foundation outing, the summer after the Cardinals SB win. Great event for five years........Sorry, just reminiscing.

[Devilsdancefloor]

No offense but it seems like everybody gets an F in your book

actuall i will give him a D-, but that is a HUGE weakness he is no prime time, so he best start sticking a helmet in the run game

[86WARD]

That’s Gay.

Yep...I see what you did there.

[86WARD]

Did everyone know that Will Gay has played in 187 straight games.......and he let me wear his Super Bowl ring.....for 30 seconds.

I heard that during the game. Was kinda shocked but then never really thought about it either. impressive.

[Steeldude]

If teams refused to start every player who didn't give maximum effort even once - then the league would have to fold up tomorrow.

Like you realize that complaining about the effort and commitment level of players is totally legitimate and should be welcomed, but you have to see that some of your statements are simply so extreme as to have no impact, right?

You literally just argued that any one who gives up on a single play ever and that is their only mistake should be barred from starting in the NFL. Like just think about that for a second.

How many players deliberately refuse to try? I'm not talking about a player who is badly injured or on the other side of the field. A RB is going toward and you decide to deliberately let him go by you without trying at all. Yep, call me whatever you want, but I have zero tolerance for pussies and lazy people on the field.

Impact? What are you referring to?

I certainly hope he tries if they reach the SB. But if he doesn't we could always just excuse him by saying other players have done the same too.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

CB William Jackson, 92.3 overall grade

While there weren’t many highlights on the Bengal defense, William Jackson may have emerged as their top cornerback. Jackson was targeted six times, allowing only one reception for three yards in 26 snaps in coverage. Furthermore, he was exceptional when covering Antonio Brown. When in primary coverage against Brown, Jackson did not allow a catch on four targets and had three passes defensed. When Ben Roethlisberger targeted Jackson in coverage, he only had a 39.6 passer rating

https://www.profootballfocus.com/new...ati-bengals-14

[Mojouw]

How many players deliberately refuse to try? I'm not talking about a player who is badly injured or on the other side of the field. A RB is going toward and you decide to deliberately let him go by you without trying at all. Yep, call me whatever you want, but I have zero tolerance for pussies and lazy people on the field.

Impact? What are you referring to?

I certainly hope he tries if they reach the SB. But if he doesn't we could always just excuse him by saying other players have done the same too.

If we were to break down the ALL 22 film from every game the Steelers played, I'm sure we could find instances of most of the roster not giving max effort on a play. We could argue all day about how to interpret that.

By "impact" I mean that if your posts are an attempt to engage others in conversation, move the thread discussion forward, and/or sway people to your line of thinking -- well most often the statements are so extreme and without being grounded in any context that few can be taken seriously. If, instead, your posts are meant to express your displeasure with the current attitudes of players, fans, and the NFL in general and have little to do with moving the conversation forward -- then by all means continue.

For instance, I will ask this again, if you extend your argument that Burns is a lazy pussy who has no place on Steeldude's Steelers roster - what do you do? Do you ever trade Cockrell or do you trade Burns instead? If you bench Burns, who do you start opposite Haden? If it is Hilton (a player I assume you really like), then who plays the slot? To me, these are incredibly interesting questions and easily thought through potential outcomes of a Burns benching.

However, for you, in thread after thread - you seem only interested in pointing out some equivalent of "everything sucks now and things used to be better back when". This type of argument is one of my pet peeves, because every generation ever has said some version of this and I am sure I will be saying too in a few short years. Doesn't mean it is true. That's why I always push back on your postings and perhaps I should stop because I'm likely being unreasonable.

But simply stopping by 50% of the threads to say "modern players are lazy, entitled, and not tough enough" isn't interesting and is largely irrelevant (except for bashing Bryant's recent idiocy -- go nuts there!) because it can't be changed. The only option teams would have would be to choose not to field a roster...or invent a time machine...

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

I was initially disappointed when we picked Burns in the first round last year.

I am curious how everyone feels about Burns now, especially compared to Jackson, who many (including myself) thought would be much better than Burns.

Jackson is the better CB, but was picked before the Steelers had a chance, so its really a moot point.

Burns was the 5th CB taken and I thought he was a reach, as his college film showed a guy with bad technique, he peeked at the QB a lot to come off his coverage and try to get INT, his field drills at the NFL Combine showed stiff hip turn and change of direction...but he had speed, long arms and catches the ball well.

The Steelers have done a good job of playing coverages that suit his deficiencies. He often plays in bail technique, so doesn't backpedal to expose his lack of fluidity in hip turn. He gets some safety help so he can play underneath coverage in "bail and trail" technique. They play defense where he can defend the boundary and look in to drive on short passes, but not something where he has to cover short slants, which might leave him to get burned on a double move.

W Jackson was not an aggressive tackler in the run game and we know Burns isn't. The habit of wanting to peek into the backfield at the QB and cheat, resulted in a TD in Kansas City, which is really sloppy and selfish. I still think the Steelers reached at Burns, but reality is there wasn't another boundary CB prospect in round 2, so they got a starting CB with that pick and that is good. Just hope he continues to improve in coverage, assignments and at least falls down in front of a ballcarrier instead of playing matador.

[hawaiiansteeler]

I still think the Steelers reached at Burns

okay, if you think the Steelers reached by selecting Artie Burns at 1(25) please tell us who you would have selected instead?

[Steeldude]

If we were to break down the ALL 22 film from every game the Steelers played, I'm sure we could find instances of most of the roster not giving max effort on a play. We could argue all day about how to interpret that.

By "impact" I mean that if your posts are an attempt to engage others in conversation, move the thread discussion forward, and/or sway people to your line of thinking -- well most often the statements are so extreme and without being grounded in any context that few can be taken seriously. If, instead, your posts are meant to express your displeasure with the current attitudes of players, fans, and the NFL in general and have little to do with moving the conversation forward -- then by all means continue.

For instance, I will ask this again, if you extend your argument that Burns is a lazy pussy who has no place on Steeldude's Steelers roster - what do you do? Do you ever trade Cockrell or do you trade Burns instead? If you bench Burns, who do you start opposite Haden? If it is Hilton (a player I assume you really like), then who plays the slot? To me, these are incredibly interesting questions and easily thought through potential outcomes of a Burns benching.

However, for you, in thread after thread - you seem only interested in pointing out some equivalent of "everything sucks now and things used to be better back when". This type of argument is one of my pet peeves, because every generation ever has said some version of this and I am sure I will be saying too in a few short years. Doesn't mean it is true. That's why I always push back on your postings and perhaps I should stop because I'm likely being unreasonable.

But simply stopping by 50% of the threads to say "modern players are lazy, entitled, and not tough enough" isn't interesting and is largely irrelevant (except for bashing Bryant's recent idiocy -- go nuts there!) because it can't be changed. The only option teams would have would be to choose not to field a roster...or invent a time machine...

So it's ok to express a negative opinion of Bryant, but not Burns? Hmmm...

By "impact" I mean that if your posts are an attempt to engage others in conversation, move the thread discussion forward, and/or sway people to your line of thinking

My posts are merely opinions of my own. People can express any opinion on play. I couldn't care less if people agree or disagree with my opinion. I realize you and Grover Dill love morphing my posts into something they are not, but you really should relax. Yes, I cannot stand players who blatantly do not try. Nowhere did I say or imply that all players are giving 100% on every play, in every area of the field. The way I played football was to give 100% effort on every play. At no point in my life did I ever refuse to stop a ball carrier or refuse to catch a pass without a valid reason. For example, I might refuse to catch a forward pass behind the scrimmage if it appears it will be for a loss.

I'm sure we could find instances of most of the roster not giving max effort on a play

How about instances of deliberately putting forth no effort at all in a play they could stop? You seem to be making my post into something it is not to push some sort of agenda. Let me be clear by using this scenario.... A RB is coming toward a Steeler defender, instead of attempting to tackle the RB, the defender decides to put his hands in the air to let him run past. For me, that is an automatic bench or at least a decrease in playing time. For you it's no big deal. Yes?

Cockrell is no longer on the team. If he was I would insert him as the starter. As of now, Gay would be used. If Gay does well then he remains the starter. Hopefully benching Burns will turn a light on in his head. Burns is not a child. He is something like 22 or 23 years old.

The only option teams would have would be to choose not to field a roster.

So the NFL is filled with players who deliberately let ball carriers run by them without even an attempt to stop them? I guess you and I watch two different leagues.

[teegre]

Grover Dill

That is one helluva clever reference. Well done.

[BlackAndGold]

Burns has played well this year, almost had a great pick this past week but Dalton made a great throw.

He's a work in progress but most of us knew this after he was drafted. He is only 22 years old compared to WJ3 who will be 25 in 2 days, he'll only get better.

Burns was the right choice.

I mean ffs, what is there to truly complain about? he is part of the reason why the secondary is playing great.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

okay, if you think the Steelers reached by selecting Artie Burns at 1(25) please tell us who you would have selected instead?

Depends, if I was going BPA, I would have likely selected Robert Nkmdeche or Vernon Butler. Steelers had it in their mind to get a CB and like I said in the earlier post.."reality is there wasn't another good boundary CB there in round 2, so they got their CB with that pick".

[Mojouw]

So it's ok to express a negative opinion of Bryant, but not Burns? Hmmm...



My posts are merely opinions of my own. People can express any opinion on play. I couldn't care less if people agree or disagree with my opinion. I realize you and Grover Dill love morphing my posts into something they are not, but you really should relax. Yes, I cannot stand players who blatantly do not try. Nowhere did I say or imply that all players are giving 100% on every play, in every area of the field. The way I played football was to give 100% effort on every play. At no point in my life did I ever refuse to stop a ball carrier or refuse to catch a pass without a valid reason. For example, I might refuse to catch a forward pass behind the scrimmage if it appears it will be for a loss.



How about instances of deliberately putting forth no effort at all in a play they could stop? You seem to be making my post into something it is not to push some sort of agenda. Let me be clear by using this scenario.... A RB is coming toward a Steeler defender, instead of attempting to tackle the RB, the defender decides to put his hands in the air to let him run past. For me, that is an automatic bench or at least a decrease in playing time. For you it's no big deal. Yes?

Cockrell is no longer on the team. If he was I would insert him as the starter. As of now, Gay would be used. If Gay does well then he remains the starter. Hopefully benching Burns will turn a light on in his head. Burns is not a child. He is something like 22 or 23 years old.



So the NFL is filled with players who deliberately let ball carriers run by them without even an attempt to stop them? I guess you and I watch two different leagues.

You have repeatedly not addressed specific questions put to you based on your postings. You have repeatedly only selectively read responses directed towards you and exaggerated those responses.

My understanding of your original fairly short posting was that any player who doesn't give 100% effort on even one play in a game/season has no place playing on an NFL roster. My response was never to excuse lack of effort or lack of trying, but to simply point out that you had appeared to stake out a rather extreme position. One that seemed to, when taken to its logical extension, point towards the benching of at least 50% of NFL players.

Additionally, I have never once intended to argue that you can not express whatever opinion you please. Sorry if you took it that way. I am attempting to say that if you want others to discuss, agree, and/or be interested in your opinions (kind of the basic function of a message board, no?) then it might be interesting to explain how you envision your often extreme solutions to problems working within the context of the Steelers roster.

But if you want to simply figure I'm a jackass who is attacking you solely because I hold a different opinion than you're own - that's cool. The line for that forms to the left - it is fairly long.

[Mojouw]

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2017/10...work-progress/

Not always a fan of this particular writer, but he does provide some video evidence of Burns' "run support".

Appears that he is...ummm....trying (a generous application of the term), he just totally sucks at it!

[DesertSteel]

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2017/10...work-progress/

Not always a fan of this particular writer, but he does provide some video evidence of Burns' "run support".

Appears that he is...ummm....trying (a generous application of the term), he just totally sucks at it!

Very generous lol.

I'm not down on him though. I think he'll get coached up. I can't imagine the lashings he gets in the film room on some of those attempted tackles. I spend my afternoons screaming at 12-year-olds for trying that stuff and they get better. I have to think the Burns will.

[Mojouw]

Very generous lol.

I'm not down on him though. I think he'll get coached up. I can't imagine the lashings he gets in the film room on some of those attempted tackles. I spend my afternoons screaming at 12-year-olds for trying that stuff and they get better. I have to think the Burns will.

Yeah. Who knows? Maybe he never gets better.

I wonder where the Steelers fall on the run support vs pass defense thing? I mean for years it was pretty clear if you couldn't tackle in run support, you were never going to play corner for this team. I wonder if the recent torchings they have suffered in critical games have them re-thinking that?

[86WARD]

As long as he defends the pass, they have other guys that should make the plays in run support. Look he’s just like Deion Sanders with less flair, less ball skills and less coverage skills.

[DesertSteel]

As long as he defends the pass, they have other guys that should make the plays in run support. Look he’s just like Deion Sanders with less flair, less ball skills and less coverage skills.

Steeldude would have Sanders on 3rd string for his tackling.

[86WARD]

Lol. Sanders tackling is why I’d put him second all time to Woodson.

[43Hitman]

That is one helluva clever reference. Well done.

One of my all time favorite movies around Christmas