Does This Seem Goofy to Anyone Else?

[Mojouw]

Or is the idea of signing Honey Badger seem like not the best idea with Edmunds on board?

https://steelersdepot.com/2019/02/ho...ng-this-march/

Assume that Davis stays at FS. Mathieu's best position to play the most downs would be SS (I realize he would move all over the field). That relegates your last 1st round draft pick to the bench or at least only playing 50% or less of the defensive snaps.

Maybe I'm just grumpy this morning, but how would spending a 2018 1st round pick on a SS and then spending big time FA $$ on the same position be a wise use of resources? And we can reasonably project from Burnett's reaction that neither Edmunds or Mathieu would like to spend 2019 being a positionless roving sub-pakage defender. So signing Mathieu would essentially mean you don't believe in your most recent prized draft pick...Edmunds had a rocky rookie year but not that rocky.

I say take the $$$ and spend it somewhere else. Would likely see more results. If you are going to spend 8 million + per year on a defender please get an outside CB!

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Yeah, I guess it depends on if they have cap room to get some of the glaring holes filled, like at CB, ILB, OLB. I think he improves the safety position, but I think its OK right now other than some veteran depth.

[HollywoodSteel]

I agree that this isn’t the best use of money, but just to try to come up with an argument... say the Steelers don’t land any big time free agents for whatever reason and we have cap room to spare...

If Burnett wasn’t making a fuss and wanted to stay on the team, wouldn’t we have kept him and used him? Or would we have gotten rid of him anyway because he’s useless to us?

Chances are we would have kept him and considered him useful.


So just imagine the same scenario but with a better player. Whatever we would have done with a happy Burnett, we do with a happy badger.

But if we had gotten the Badger last year instead of Burnett, would we still have drafted Edmunds?

I’m saying, it would be nice to have him, and no doubt we’d get a lot of use out of him as we are in our sub packages most of the time. But it ONLY seems like a reasonable move if we aren’t sacrificing a signing of greater need.

So this move would not be anywhere near the top of my to do list. And chances are someone else will probably be making a move for him as we’re trying to do other things. Like if we can make a trade for Ramsey and sign him to a deal that would make him happy, we should definitely try to make that work rather than go shopping for a high priced safety.

[HollywoodSteel]

Also, if the Steelers go after a high profile safety, it might mean they don’t have confidence in Marcus Allen. Wasn’t he drafted specifically because he can be a safety/LB hybrid?

Don’t the Steelers really try to grow their own players from scratch when possible, rather than shop for them? So when they do go shopping, it seems like a clear statement of disappointment in their draft picks.

[steelreserve]

It's not a move I would've thought of, but I can see a couple ways that it makes sense.

One, if we don't have Davis in our future plans. He's an UFA after this year, so if either a) we don't think he's up to standard for a long-term deal, or b) he's going to cost a lot more money than he's worth (or both), maybe almost as much as Honey Badger ... then why not bring in the guy who you know can be a badass instead?

The other is if we planned to use Mathieu in that elusive hybrid safety / third CB / linebacker role. The 3-3-5 defense, 3-3 defense with a rover, whatever you want to call it. Maybe that was our plan all along, but Burnett wasn't good enough and Edmunds isn't ready (or would be better as a traditional safety). I think that defensive scheme is going to be big in the future of the NFL, but it takes a special kind of player to make it work. A guy with Honey Badger's talent could be that player. Try using some random guy like Burnett, and you get a shitty result like last year.

That third receiver / pass-catching TE has really been the thing that defenses have struggled to solve for a decade or more now. Throwing an extra regular CB out there in a perpetual "traditional" nickel is not the answer because it leaves you weak in other ways. A safety fits the bill better, but not your traditional center-field safety either. It needs to be someone with better 1-on-1 coverage ability than your average nickel corner, and who is also physical enough to cover TEs and play a respectable linebacker-lite position in the box. Ronnie Lott would have been the ideal player for this, but sadly, he's not available. Burnett was so obviously not that guy in any respect, Davis lacks the coverage skills, and who knows about Edmunds. So that's where this particular move could fit in. I would be excited about it if we did it, because I think it means we're on the right track.

[Mojouw]

Ok. I can see it if you are basically switching to a 3-3-5 or nickel as your base defense. Then you have a FS-SS-Moneybacker on the field for the overwhelming majority of defensive snaps. In that scenario the allocation of resources makes a great deal of sense.

Even if you want to maintain that you are a base 3-4 team, as long as you plan on lining up in a 3 safety alignment 60% or more, then it is still a good use of resources.

However, I wonder how many teams are going to see the playoffs and SB and just switch back to bludgeoning these lighter LB/Hybrid fronts? What I mean is that it is a fascinating problem. It is far far easier for the offense to have two modes: Pass Wacky Multi WR One TE One Back (so the Chiefs/Rams/Steelers etc) and then Heavy But Still Agile Two TE FB (Pats in playoffs/Insert Team Here) set. The defense almost needs two totally different sets of players to combat that. If your LBs and DBs can run with the first set, they are going to get blown off the ball by the second.

Maybe, teams (and me!) are just thinking about this wrong and the traditional pass down/run down defensive substitution patterns contribute to this. But I am not sure how you ask the same defense to defend a 2019 passing attack and also a 1985 running attack...

[Born2Steel]

Ok. I can see it if you are basically switching to a 3-3-5 or nickel as your base defense. Then you have a FS-SS-Moneybacker on the field for the overwhelming majority of defensive snaps. In that scenario the allocation of resources makes a great deal of sense.

Even if you want to maintain that you are a base 3-4 team, as long as you plan on lining up in a 3 safety alignment 60% or more, then it is still a good use of resources.

However, I wonder how many teams are going to see the playoffs and SB and just switch back to bludgeoning these lighter LB/Hybrid fronts? What I mean is that it is a fascinating problem. It is far far easier for the offense to have two modes: Pass Wacky Multi WR One TE One Back (so the Chiefs/Rams/Steelers etc) and then Heavy But Still Agile Two TE FB (Pats in playoffs/Insert Team Here) set. The defense almost needs two totally different sets of players to combat that. If your LBs and DBs can run with the first set, they are going to get blown off the ball by the second.

Maybe, teams (and me!) are just thinking about this wrong and the traditional pass down/run down defensive substitution patterns contribute to this. But I am not sure how you ask the same defense to defend a 2019 passing attack and also a 1985 running attack...

Your last question is exactly why I am so disappointed in the under-achieving ‘Killer B’ offense. It was both styles and could run both styles equally well. It’s a shame it never got to live up to potential.

[Mojouw]

Your last question is exactly why I am so disappointed in the under-achieving ‘Killer B’ offense. It was both styles and could run both styles equally well. It’s a shame it never got to live up to potential.

Yeah. The inability of the recent Steelers teams to figure out how to use a FB and 2 TEs in anything other than blindingly obvious I-formation power dives has been remote controller throwing rage inducing to watch.

[steelreserve]

Ok. I can see it if you are basically switching to a 3-3-5 or nickel as your base defense. Then you have a FS-SS-Moneybacker on the field for the overwhelming majority of defensive snaps. In that scenario the allocation of resources makes a great deal of sense.

Even if you want to maintain that you are a base 3-4 team, as long as you plan on lining up in a 3 safety alignment 60% or more, then it is still a good use of resources.

However, I wonder how many teams are going to see the playoffs and SB and just switch back to bludgeoning these lighter LB/Hybrid fronts? What I mean is that it is a fascinating problem. It is far far easier for the offense to have two modes: Pass Wacky Multi WR One TE One Back (so the Chiefs/Rams/Steelers etc) and then Heavy But Still Agile Two TE FB (Pats in playoffs/Insert Team Here) set. The defense almost needs two totally different sets of players to combat that. If your LBs and DBs can run with the first set, they are going to get blown off the ball by the second.

Maybe, teams (and me!) are just thinking about this wrong and the traditional pass down/run down defensive substitution patterns contribute to this. But I am not sure how you ask the same defense to defend a 2019 passing attack and also a 1985 running attack...

Well, I think if you start out in a 3-4 it's a lot more natural transition to defend the run. You are just taking your least run-oriented LB of the four and replacing him with a slightly smaller but still physical guy. Ideally it's not a drop-off at all in physicality, which is why ... maybe a 6-foot, 220-pound guy is better suited for the position than a 5-9, 185-pound guy, but if you think you can make it work, you ought to try.

I would be less scared about the second tight end (as either a receiving or blocking threat) than about being unable to deal with the pass-heavy 3WR + TE offense. So if you can force them into that style of offense and have Tom Brady or Drew Brees try to beat you by running the ball down your throat ... well, good luck to them then, you have won that battle and forced THEM to try something unnatural to counter you. Especially against those offenses designed to be all-out passing attacks, that is putting the odds way in your favor if they have to beat you with a second-string TE and a running back who doesn't really run.

[st33lersguy]

Isn't he injury prone anyway?

[86WARD]

I'd rather give Edmunds one more year to see if anything comes on and improve Davis' side or use it for CBs. Could Edmunds or Mathieu play Davis' spot?