monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"
OT: - The Pittsburgher Thread: New Quarter Backs for the Handball team! | Page 74 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
  • Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates, this is just a temporary look. We will continue to work on clearing up these issues for the next few days and restore the site to it's more familiar look, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

OT: The Pittsburgher Thread: New Quarter Backs for the Handball team!

Status
Not open for further replies.




Sounds like it's actually Courtland Sutton. Really curious to see how this plays out.

I think trading for Sutton and also bringing back Peterson makes a lot of sense, if the money works that is.
 
Jaded-Fan said:
I am not sure that Wilson is automaticallythe quarterbackthis coming year. . Fields will be given every chance to compete for the starter job.
Click to expand...

If that’s the case and Fields can’t beat out the current version of Wilson, then so be it. I’m just not all that confident that there will be a legit competition based on how 2022 went.

My more negative view of the QB situation is nothing to do with them not pulling a franchise QB out of their ass and pretty much all to do with assuming that Wilson will be locked in as the starter.
 
Empoleon8771 said:
The Steelers were not in a position to acquire a long-term QB this off-season, so going with a 1 year stopgap in Wilson and a lottery ticket in Fields was the best option.
Click to expand...

See this bit in itself I don't have much argument.

It's the idea that these guys should be seen as more than stop-gaps/very unlikely lottery tickets that the team shouldn't have much patience with that has me going "hang on". The idea that Fields represents an opportunity to unlock an exciting QB rather than trying to turn someone's vomit back into dinner. Thanks for digging up the examples of guys who have become solid starting QBs after starts like Fields (arguably worse) but at the same time, if Fields turns into Alex Smith then he's still very probably a waste of time if the goal is winning a Super Bowl. The best you can paint the scenario is that like Smith, Fields can keep a team respectable long enough that they can strike at just the right moment to get a QB and introduce him into a solid team... but that'd involve a bunch of luck.

The part where the team quite possibly thinks they're more than stop gaps worries me.

And the part where some other fans think they're more is going to make for a delightful five month debate.

xlm34 said:
Why wait? That is the part that I just do not get at all in this whole QB situation. If Wilson is just a one year stop gap that most likely doesn’t make you a Super Bowl contender, why is he being penciled in as the starter? Why not find out what you have in Fields?
Click to expand...

Yeah.

I think the most likely explanation is they think Russell Wilson gives them a win-now window.
 
I don't see a point in bringing in a guy who has nearly 70 goddamn turnovers in 3 seasons for a coach who spazzes out over turnovers. Fields has almost no chance to be mediocre let alone good.
 
Peat said:
See this bit in itself I don't have much argument.

It's the idea that these guys should be seen as more than stop-gaps/very unlikely lottery tickets that the team shouldn't have much patience with that has me going "hang on". The idea that Fields represents an opportunity to unlock an exciting QB rather than trying to turn someone's vomit back into dinner. Thanks for digging up the examples of guys who have become solid starting QBs after starts like Fields (arguably worse) but at the same time, if Fields turns into Alex Smith then he's still very probably a waste of time if the goal is winning a Super Bowl. The best you can paint the scenario is that like Smith, Fields can keep a team respectable long enough that they can strike at just the right moment to get a QB and introduce him into a solid team... but that'd involve a bunch of luck.

The part where the team quite possibly thinks they're more than stop gaps worries me.

And the part where some other fans think they're more is going to make for a delightful five month debate.
Click to expand...

I think Wilson is firmly just a 1 or 2 year stopgap, but I want to be patient with Fields. I think the athletic tools with Fields are there enough for me to want to give him a shot, and I don't view him as much different than taking a 3rd or 4th round lottery ticket QB. It probably won't pan out, but I don't see the harm when you don't have another option.

I think my main disagreement is with the bolded. I think this logic basically suggests that teams should never try to gamble on QB prospects that aren't super high upside and aren't taken high in the draft. Even when the Steelers took Pickett at 20th overall, I still think Pickett would fall under this category of "a waste of time if the goal is winning a Super Bowl". To get one of those high upside guys, you basically need a top-10 pick or to pay a ton via trade/free agency. And even then, it's not anything even close to guaranteed.

Of the top QBs in the NFL, something like 75% of them were high 1st rounders. The only exceptions were guys like Prescott, Jackson (who was still a late 1st), Purdy and Hurts. Everyone else like Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, Goff, Stafford and Stroud were all super high 1sts. In the meantime until you're in a position to grab one of those guys, I don't really see a better alternative than gambling on someone like Fields or Wilson.
 
Sutton and Pickens are a big WR combo, that’s for sure. Pickens is a little faster, but there should be no shortage of deep/redzone threats on this team if Sutton is actually traded here.
 
Empoleon8771 said:




Sounds like it's actually Courtland Sutton. Really curious to see how this plays out.

I think trading for Sutton and also bringing back Peterson makes a lot of sense, if the money works that is.
Click to expand...

I think PP is done, rather move on TBH.

DanielPlainview said:
If it's Sutton have to wonder if Russ was behind it
Click to expand...
Or myself? Pretty close to bein done.
 
Peat said:
See this bit in itself I don't have much argument.

It's the idea that these guys should be seen as more than stop-gaps/very unlikely lottery tickets that the team shouldn't have much patience with that has me going "hang on". The idea that Fields represents an opportunity to unlock an exciting QB rather than trying to turn someone's vomit back into dinner. Thanks for digging up the examples of guys who have become solid starting QBs after starts like Fields (arguably worse) but at the same time, if Fields turns into Alex Smith then he's still very probably a waste of time if the goal is winning a Super Bowl. The best you can paint the scenario is that like Smith, Fields can keep a team respectable long enough that they can strike at just the right moment to get a QB and introduce him into a solid team... but that'd involve a bunch of luck.

The part where the team quite possibly thinks they're more than stop gaps worries me.

And the part where some other fans think they're more is going to make for a delightful five month debate.



Yeah.

I think the most likely explanation is they think Russell Wilson gives them a win-now window.
Click to expand...

Oh I’d be pretty surprised if they didn’t think that. I don’t agree, but certainly hope I’m wrong. And if that makes me a nihilist, then oh well I guess.
 
A more subjective ranking has Fields 19th and Wilson 20th.

www.nfl.com

NFL QB Index: Ranking all 32 teams' primary starting quarterbacks at the end of the 2023 regular season

With the 2023 NFL regular season in the books, Nick Shook ranks the starting quarterbacks for all 32 teams. Where do rejuvenated veterans like Matthew Stafford, Jared Goff and Joe Flacco slot in?
www.nfl.com www.nfl.com

The point is that the two are pretty interchangeable in most rankings/analysis. In that case go with the kid with upside.

The Steelers will likely do just that. A truly open competition.

As for Fields, this is what they said about him in the link above:

2023 was quite a roller coaster for Fields and the Bears, who failed to protect him adequately early in the season and left him to fend for himself while receivers struggled to get open. The broadcast copies of these games depicted a quarterback hanging onto the football for too long and being forced to run for his life as his only chance of success, but it was more complicated than that.

Fields quickly (and temporarily) shifted his narrative with a fantastic showing in a win over Washington in Week 5, tossing four touchdown passes and shredding one of the NFL’s worst defenses, but a dislocated right thumb interrupted his sudden good mojo. He returned in time to finish strong, leading the Bears to four wins in their final six games.
Click to expand...
 
Empoleon8771 said:
I think Wilson is firmly just a 1 or 2 year stopgap, but I want to be patient with Fields. I think the athletic tools with Fields are there enough for me to want to give him a shot, and I don't view him as much different than taking a 3rd or 4th round lottery ticket QB. It probably won't pan out, but I don't see the harm when you don't have another option.

I think my main disagreement is with the bolded. I think this logic basically suggests that teams should never try to gamble on QB prospects that aren't super high upside and aren't taken high in the draft. Even when the Steelers took Pickett at 20th overall, I still think Pickett would fall under this category of "a waste of time if the goal is winning a Super Bowl". To get one of those high upside guys, you basically need a top-10 pick or to pay a ton via trade/free agency. And even then, it's not anything even close to guaranteed.

Of the top QBs in the NFL, something like 75% of them were high 1st rounders. The only exceptions were guys like Prescott, Jackson (who was still a late 1st), Purdy and Hurts. Everyone else like Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, Goff, Stafford and Stroud were all super high 1sts. In the meantime until you're in a position to grab one of those guys, I don't really see a better alternative than gambling on someone like Fields or Wilson.
Click to expand...

Split this into two points

1) I think the way the NFL is structured means obviously you can never go through it while having super-talents at QB all the time, but you should try your damn'est and go cheap if you can't.

So Wilson and Fields are fine while they're cheap but the moment they're not, unless they've somehow jumped all the way to super-talent (or back in Wilson's case), I don't want them. Since it seems very unlikely someone will recover from Fields' position to become a super-talent, this means the only worthwhile time with him as a starter is while he's cheap, which presumably wouldn't be all that long.

Ergo, I don't get talking about any of them as long term. The best case is a Mayfield level talent on a Mayfield level deal which makes a team an also-ran. I get why GMs and HCs will do it as that's better job security than gambling on guys like Arthur Smith did, but for a fan who wants to see Super Bowls, it's not a good thing.

2) My personal view of the QB position is that Fields' athleticism should buy him nothing. Imo, QB ceiling is mostly determined by processing, accuracy, and ability to play situational football. Athleticism comes a very distant fourth and should mainly be considered in terms of how it helps players do the above three things which, as a rule, is not much. I think Josh Allen is the one QB in the league where being a hyper-athlete noticeably plays into success with processing/accuracy/situational football.
 
Yeah I think Wilson by default is a 1 or 2 year short term option simply due to his age.

There's obviously the potential Fields could turn into a long term option because he's younger, but I'm not betting on that outcome. We're going to decline his 5th year option this week and he'll either hit free agency next summer, or we'll try to get him to sign on for an extra year like the venerable Gerry Dulac thinks. What would those contract terms even look like? $5m per?

It's just hard for me to imagine a scenario where either of these guys prevents us from drafting our future franchise QB, whoever that is. The acquisition cost (vet min and a 2025 conditional 6th round pick) is too low to think otherwise right now. Now if Russ gets hurt and Fields leads us to a playoff win or something, then I think that changes the equation.
 
They signed Wilson first.

Then Fields dropped into their laps.

Do they "owe" Wilson the starting position because of his age? Or anything else?

Why?

All things being equal, and they do measure similarly right now, why wouldn't you choose the younger guy who could grow?
 
Double-Shift Lasse said:
I'm not following the concern over "going all in" by trading for a receiver. In fairness, I'm working on the assumption that no trade for a WR this season would involve next year's first rounder, and maybe not even second rounder.

Yes there are roster issues, and the QB thing will likely need to be addressed, but I can't envision a scenario in which the team handcuffs it's ability to do that with a move this offseason. If that proves mistaken, then yeah I'm probably concerned.
Click to expand...

I’m going off the assumption it would be a first to land a big name.

If not then I don’t think that would really be considered going all in.
 
Mr Jiggyfly said:
I’m going off the assumption it would be a first to land a big name.

If not then I don’t think that would really be considered going all in.
Click to expand...
Trading a first would be stupid.

With how unsure two new quarterbacks, a new OC, and whether Tomlin will let them do anything, that first could be a top five pick.

And not needed.
 
Last edited:
Don't really have an interest in bringing Peterson back. He looked pretty cooked to me and at age 33 I'm not expecting a bounce back. It made some sense to have him mentor a rookie JPJ but unless he wants a job on the coaching staff, his time here should be done.

Cam Sutton back on a vet min deal would be gross, but he probably has more left in the tank from a football perspective.
 
Jaded-Fan said:
Trading a first would be stupid.

With how unsure two new quarterbacks, a new OC, and whether Tomlin will let them do anything, that first could be a top five pick.

And not needed.
Click to expand...
Does Denver have room for a slightly used Dan Moore?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top
-->->