Steelers 2024 Offseason Thread

Post by **nocera** » Mon Mar 18, 2024 8:52 am

We're going to trade for Justin Jefferson. It'll be fine.

Post by **mac5155** » Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:03 am

One would assume any even borderline realistic JJ trade would've included KSP. But LET OMAR COOK

Post by **Pavel Bure** » Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:11 am

mac5155 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:03 am One would assume any even borderline realistic JJ trade would've included KSP. But LET OMAR COOK

TJ Watt.

Post by **robbiestoupe** » Mon Mar 18, 2024 8:32 pm

tifosi77 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 12:22 am
mac5155 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 8:57 pm Was this how it was in the 80s after Bradshaw retired too?
Look at the names that started in the 20+ yrs between Bradshaw and Ben; my memory features more Cliff Stoudt than it should. Some franchises never get that second guy.

Yep, being born in the middle of the Steelers’ dynasty means I have zero recollection of said dynasty. By the time I became aware of myself and football, they were 1 Mark Malone into finding that next franchise QB.

The unhealthy amount of mock drafts I followed in 2004 made every Mel Kiper viewing on TV worth it in the end. Somehow I just knew Ben was going to make a big difference and put them over the top.

Post by **faftorial** » Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:05 pm

robbiestoupe wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 8:32 pm
tifosi77 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 12:22 am
mac5155 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 8:57 pm Was this how it was in the 80s after Bradshaw retired too?
Look at the names that started in the 20+ yrs between Bradshaw and Ben; my memory features more Cliff Stoudt than it should. Some franchises never get that second guy.
Yep, being born in the middle of the Steelers’ dynasty means I have zero recollection of said dynasty. By the time I became aware of myself and football, they were 1 Mark Malone into finding that next franchise QB.

The unhealthy amount of mock drafts I followed in 2004 made every Mel Kiper viewing on TV worth it in the end. Somehow I just knew Ben was going to make a big difference and put them over the top.

Most of the Malone era was bad. They may have made it back to the playoffs eventually.

I never liked 16 for a qb number.

Post by **Ad@m** » Mon Mar 18, 2024 10:23 pm

Post by **tifosi77** » Mon Mar 18, 2024 10:59 pm

Some of my earliest life memories are of going to Steelers camp as a little Yinzling and meeting those 70s players. And I still carry hated in my heart for the Cowboys over all other professional sports teams because of Cliff Harris, so I remember whatever Super Bowl that was. (I was very young)

Post by **Sam's Drunk Dog** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 6:40 am

Not great

Post by **MR25** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 6:45 am

Well they also both played behind terrible O lines so....

Post by **count2infinity** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 6:46 am

Probably already discussed, but I read a report that the bears had 4 offers they were considering and took them to Fields. He asked for the Steelers and the bears obliged. Kinda neat to see that.

Post by **mac5155** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:07 am

MR25 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 6:45 am Well they also both played behind terrible O lines so....

Played or will play?

Our O line was pretty bad also, although I'll give it to you, it was improving.

Post by **Troy Loney** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:13 am

I am pretty sure that Moore is passable at LT, but they might take a project at T in the draft and eventually move him to RT and Broderick to LT.

I do think that Cole was the weak link, and having your weak link at center is the worst situation. I think that getting a league average performer in the position will have a ripple effect on the rest of the line.

Post by **genoscoif** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:57 am

Sam's Drunk Dog wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 6:40 am Not great

Not great but weird graph. Why use 2 years when a bunch of the QBs on there didn't play 2 full seasons? Like, Sam Howell was sacked 65 times last season alone. lol. Would be better if it was 'per games started' or something like that.

Still not great, though, but kinda skewed to hammer home a point they were trying to make.

Post by **CBear3** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:30 am

Fields is pretty close to the trendline, so you just have to cut the # of sacks down. Lawrence (and Dobbs) and to a lesser extent Wilson are on the high side, which would indicate that they're taking "worse" sacks (in terms of EPA). Meanwhile, the Giants are so bad that Daniel Jones's 80+ sacks are of little importance because they're never in a high leverage situation.

Post by **Morkle** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:36 am

genoscoif wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:57 am
Sam's Drunk Dog wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 6:40 am Not great

Not great but weird graph. Why use 2 years when a bunch of the QBs on there didn't play 2 full seasons? Like, Sam Howell was sacked 65 times last season alone. lol. Would be better if it was 'per games started' or something like that.

Still not great, though, but kinda skewed to hammer home a point they were trying to make.

Because why use analytics if you can't bend it for your agenda? This is where the advanced analytics class loses me. Do the entirety of their careers to gauge context relative to the teams they were on.

Skewing the data like this to accentuate the bad really does nothing for me.

Post by **MR25** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:50 am

I also wonder if they do 2 years because

- Fields was a rookie in 21 and did not start a full slate of games
- Wilson only started with the Broncos 2 years ago
- Wilson's time on the Seahawks would've thrown their numbers off

Post by **Morkle** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:53 am

Wilson's numbers would have looked much better had they included Seattle. I don't doubt there has been regression in Wilson's game, but let's look at it with context, he moved to a team that had a worse of O line and run game than Seattle. He's coming back to a better run game and line now.

Post by **tifosi77** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:46 am

Run that graph back to 2010, and I'm not sure it really looks much (if any) better for Wilson; like he has hundreds of more sack yards lost than the #2 QB behind him. I feel like that's been a knock on his game for...... a while.

Post by **Morkle** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:25 pm

Does it matter? Wilson has thrown under 20 touchdowns in his career one time. His first year with Denver and a horrendous coach.

Post by **Troy Loney** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:39 pm

This is a good instance where we can use a Bidenism "don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative".

Wilson and Fields have massive warts, but I think at least with Wilson, this is a guy you can win with. He's not going to be the reason you win, but in most games, he's not the reason you lose. They had to overcome the QB almost all of last season. There are some interesting quotes coming out on how the brass seeing Mason have success convinced the team that the QB room was the problem.

I don't think that's s very strong Mason endorsement, but I think that came to light pretty quickly when Mason looked replacement level when facing conditions/good defenses. There was no path to getting top level QB play, but I think the Wilson signing does the most to get them back to competent quarterback play.

Post by **tifosi77** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:54 pm

It's the butterfly effect of the position. Simply elevating quarterback play to 'average' will have a ripple effect.

Post by **Pavel Bure** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:14 pm

Wonder if there are odds anywhere to bet on George Pickens over/under TDs this year. I’d say O/U 9.5 and I’d take the over.

Post by **Ad@m** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 4:21 pm

Post by **genoscoif** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 4:38 pm

Ad@m wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 4:21 pm

Yes, please.

Post by **skullman80** » Tue Mar 19, 2024 4:42 pm

No you can't have him.