Ryan Clark: Steelers Won’t Compete Until They Find Their Franchise Quarterback

[Mojouw]

This is your first sentence to hawaiinsteeler after he posted the article about Tyler Huntley:



You are telling him that what he posted is nonsense, and implying that he should not have posted it on this board. Sure sounds like an attempt to control what he can or cannot post to me.

And if you read the rest of it, I lay out what I’m talking about.

And I’ve been posting about this for years here. This is not the first time.

I have long held the opinion that some things are just not useful information because they are clearly nonsense. And posting them without comment is just not something I’ve ever supported.

Hasn’t stopped anyone nor should it. Just one dude’s opinion.

Y’all are some seriously delicate creatures if you can’t even see another point of view than your own without hitting the control button.

Multiple people expressed delight at posting the types of articles I don’t support.

I guess they’re controlling me?

[Mojouw]

This for instance is how to 100% NOT post a thread on a message board:



There are good posting styles and bad posting styles. This is NOT a good style. Whatever this link is could’ve been posted as a screenshot with a link below that actually works OR a paragraph about who or what this link is and a working link.

Also, not everyone has Facebook so that link may only work for a handful of people or vice versa.

I’m not trying to speak for MojoUW here but maybe this is kind of what he is referring to?

That’s part of it.

Really it is two things:
1. I would rather hear the thoughts and ideas and speculation of the posters on here than most of the noise generated by outside internet sites under monetary pressure to churn out oodles of “content” each day to generate clicks. Totally post whatever you want, but give your reaction as well.

2. I’m going to read every post. I don’t put anything on ignore and never will. Everyone do their thing. But I will continue to encourage posting commentary. This is not new from me. I’ve been posting and moaning about it for years.

I will say that the times I have significant trouble posting linked content to this site is basically 8/10 times. So I’m hesitant to really clown on people for formatting. It rarely works for me. I’ve basically stopped because it is too annoying.

[EzraTank]

Getting back to the QB stuff...

I watched a video from "That's Good Sports" going over the Steelers options that was well done.

He said the Steelers front office is split between rolling with Pickett for at least one more year and signing a vet backup like Tannehill, trading for Fields, or signing Wilson for cheap.

If I had to rate my order of preference, it would be:

1. Roll with Pickett/Tannehill
2. Sign Russell Wilson (league minimum only w/incentives).
3. Trade for Fields.

Under no circumstances do I want to do option #3 which cost us our 1st rounder this year.

We need OL & CB bad. Wating our #20 pick to get Fields IMHO would be a huge risk/waste. Yes, Fields never really had weapons in Chicago, but he's also shown no sign that he's worth a first rounder.

If Arthur Smiths offense is a run first, play action type offense that is exactly what Russell Wilson excelled at in Seattle when they had Marshawn Lynch. My biggest issue is, does Wilson still have it?

[DesertSteel]

This for instance is how to 100% NOT post a thread on a message board:



There are good posting styles and bad posting styles. This is NOT a good style. Whatever this link is could’ve been posted as a screenshot with a link below that actually works OR a paragraph about who or what this link is and a working link.

Also, not everyone has Facebook so that link may only work for a handful of people or vice versa.

I’m not trying to speak for MojoUW here but maybe this is kind of what he is referring to?

There's a zero chance that I will ever click on a link posted like that. I want to know what the subject is and some preview of the content. Otherwise, it's just spam.

[EzraTank]

There's a zero chance that I will ever click on a link posted like that. I want to know what the subject is and some preview of the content. Otherwise, it's just spam.

Not even if it says naked chick's?

[lipps83]

Not even if it says naked chick's?

Well, he did say he would need a preview of the content first.

[86WARD]

That’s part of it.

Really it is two things:
1. I would rather hear the thoughts and ideas and speculation of the posters on here than most of the noise generated by outside internet sites under monetary pressure to churn out oodles of “content” each day to generate clicks. Totally post whatever you want, but give your reaction as well.

2. I’m going to read every post. I don’t put anything on ignore and never will. Everyone do their thing. But I will continue to encourage posting commentary. This is not new from me. I’ve been posting and moaning about it for years.

I will say that the times I have significant trouble posting linked content to this site is basically 8/10 times. So I’m hesitant to really clown on people for formatting. It rarely works for me. I’ve basically stopped because it is too annoying.

So a thread that is posted that reads: “Hey, I heard Patrick Mahomes wants to play in Pittsburgh in 2025. I think that is a bad idea because, blah, blah, blah” is more likely to get a response from you than some random link and a title that says “Mahomes to play in Pittsburgh. 2025”.

It makes sense. I also think there is a nice compromise if someone posts the “article” with source and then comments either in that initial post or the first reply.

For every one of you though, there could be 5-6 that don’t give a shot what the original poster thinks and just wants the news story…

[Mojouw]

So a thread that is posted that reads: “Hey, I heard Patrick Mahomes wants to play in Pittsburgh in 2025. I think that is a bad idea because, blah, blah, blah” is more likely to get a response from you than some random link and a title that says “Mahomes to play in Pittsburgh. 2025”.

It makes sense. I also think there is a nice compromise if someone posts the “article” with source and then comments either in that initial post or the first reply.

For every one of you though, there could be 5-6 that don’t give a shot what the original poster thinks and just wants the news story…

I like the compromise idea.

Everyone should know by now that I just barely like the internet more than I loathe it.

I’ve freely admitted in the past and now that individual mileage may vary.

Personally, it is a massive annoyance when a thread is just an “article” with an intentionally misleading headline by some content farm. Then no one clicks through and reads the link. Or the link that the link was twisting into a mishmash.

The original article that spurred my comment was actually about how Tyler Huntley is kinda unimpressive and Steelers might go running back into Mason Rudolph’s arms. For a backup QB. But by the time it hit the thread waves here; it was how Huntley should be a starting option.

So that’s gonna bring out my innate despising of the internet and a snarky comment from me.

[86WARD]

[Mojouw]

[pczach]

Not even if it says naked chick's?

That's fishing.

[Voice of Reason]

And if you read the rest of it, I lay out what I’m talking about.

And I’ve been posting about this for years here. This is not the first time.

I have long held the opinion that some things are just not useful information because they are clearly nonsense. And posting them without comment is just not something I’ve ever supported.

Hasn’t stopped anyone nor should it. Just one dude’s opinion.

Y’all are some seriously delicate creatures if you can’t even see another point of view than your own without hitting the control button.

Multiple people expressed delight at posting the types of articles I don’t support.

I guess they’re controlling me?

I will show your sentence once again:

I gotta ask....why does this board insist on posting this nonsense?

That is not merely an opinion on the article, as you are trying to make it seem. You are also telling the board member who posted it that it should not have been posted in the first place, which not only is an attempt by you to affect what he posts, but is a direct personal criticism of him for posting it and other similar articles he has posted. It is one board member (you) telling another board member what he should not post.

This should never happen on a message board. There is a big difference between disagreeing with what someone posts and telling them they shouldn't have posted it at all. When you do the latter, there is a good chance that the person you are dictating to will rightly become disgusted and offended and will stop posting on the board all together, and thus the entire board will be diminished. Unfortunately, that is apparently what has happened here.

[Mojouw]

I will show your sentence once again:



That is not merely an opinion on the article, as you are trying to make it seem. You are also telling the board member who posted it that it should not have been posted in the first place, which not only is an attempt by you to affect what he posts, but is a direct personal criticism of him for posting it and other similar articles he has posted. It is one board member (you) telling another board member what he should not post.

This should never happen on a message board. There is a big difference between disagreeing with what someone posts and telling them they shouldn't have posted it at all. When you do the latter, there is a good chance that the person you are dictating to will rightly become disgusted and offended and will stop posting on the board all together, and thus the entire board will be diminished. Unfortunately, that is apparently what has happened here.

You’re kinda delicate aren’t you?

I stand by my opinion. The article and those like it are nonsense.

Clearly I’ve now ended the message board and trampled on our innate rights as humans.

[pczach]

You’re kinda delicate aren’t you?

I stand by my opinion. The article and those like it are nonsense.

Clearly I’ve now ended the message board and trampled on our innate rights as humans.

[Voice of Reason]

You’re kinda delicate aren’t you?

I stand by my opinion. The article and those like it are nonsense.

Clearly I’ve now ended the message board and trampled on our innate rights as humans.

Well, apparently hawaiiansteelers is kinda delicate too, since as far as I know he has now stopped posting on the board. And according to posts I have seen and some "Reputation Comments" I have been getting, several other board members seem to agree with my take on the situation.

And I'll repeat one last time, your opinion on the articles is not the problem.

Having said all this, I have pretty much covered everything I wanted to say and any further comments I would make would just be me repeating myself, so I'm going to step away from this topic and get back to Steelers football talk.

[86WARD]

Confrontational…a word that just keeps coming to mind…for no apparent reason…

[polamalubeast]

ESPN's Ryan Clark on the Pittsburgh QB situation:

"I don't care what it takes, you have a loaded QB draft class, many great free agent QBs and the Steelers have one QB on the roster, and the guy provides no confidence for the future.

You walk away without a QB and you're not serious"

Wow

[lipps83]

I am kind of surprised at this point that the Steelers haven't engaged in talks with Ryan Clark to see if he would be interested in running the franchise.

[steelcityboyz]

I am kind of surprised at this point that the Steelers haven't engaged in talks with Ryan Clark to see if he would be interested in running the franchise.

[86WARD]

Draft classes like 2002? 2007?

[Dwinsgames]

this ....THIS ...... 1000 times THIS