Toggle sidebar

OT: The Pittsburgher Thread: Off Season We dont need a QB Edition

Rodgers is pretty much the option now for Pitt unless they want to roll with a year of Rudolph :help:
 
Good for Russ. Makes me wonder if the Giants got some inside info that Rodgers is headed here. Not sure where else he realistically could go at this point.
 
I think Rodgers definitely signs with the Steelers and the Giants pivoting to Wilson just proves that further.

I am surprised about the Giants deciding on going with Wilson and Winston rather than drafting a QB.
 
MrBrightside said:
I can't imagine that having Wilson and Winston would preclude them from taking a QB if they think one is worthy of that choice.
Click to expand...

I don't see a way that a team would sign 2 pretty established QBs only to also draft a QB in the top-5. If they're drafting a QB in the top-5, they're likely competing for the starting job if not outright starting right away.
 
Captain Hook said:
Good for Russ. Makes me wonder if the Giants got some inside info that Rodgers is headed here. Not sure where else he realistically could go at this point.
Click to expand...

Between this signing, the report from the weekend about the 6+ hour meeting Rodgers had with Tomlin and McAfee announcing a live show in Pittsburgh for next week, I'd be pretty surprised to not see Rodgers signed.

People are speculating that Rodgers will announce there, but I think it gets announced sooner and he appears on the show with his Steelers jersey on. Seems super predictable that they'd try to milk it for something like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lastcupever75
Empoleon8771 said:
I don't see a way that a team would sign 2 pretty established QBs only to also draft a QB in the top-5. If they're drafting a QB in the top-5, they're likely competing for the starting job if not outright starting right away.
Click to expand...
Because they pick 3rd and there are at most 2 QB's worth a high pick? I just can't think that one year of Wilson would stop a team from drafting a QB that they'd otherwise take top 3 overall - if so, that's incompetence of a staggering magnitude.
 
Good riddance to Wilson. If this is a decent sized deal we could be looking at maybe a 3rd or 4th round comp pick because of this. Which would be nice.
 
pistolpete11 said:
Many reasons. Sometimes rebuilding teams have different needs than contenders. Sometimes there are no good alternatives like with Russ or Rodgers. Sometimes you just want a veteran presence as a mentor like Petersen or Slay. Sometimes they were a pretty good player still, but end up getting hurt like Larry O. Many contracts are signed knowing they aren't the long term answer, but they were the best fit at the time for whatever reason.

Generally speaking, better players require more money and longer term contracts. For a team not going anywhere anyway, it's not a bad thing to remain flexible and kick the can down the road.


Highsmith dipped in 2023, but last year he had 6 sacks in 11 games. That's 9 over 17 games which would have been good for 18th in the NFL. That's very good for a secondary pass rusher. Only the Ravens, Broncos, Texans, and Vikings had 2 guys with more than 9. We also saw Watt struggle by his standards last year which indicates to me there is a scheme issue and beyond Watt, Highsmith, Herbig, and Heyward, they didn't have anyone with more than 2. I'd say both of those are bigger contributors to their pass rush issues than Highsmith.

What's frustrating with Muth is that he had a good year even though the HC and/or QB are afraid of throwing the ball over the middle of the field. Rectify that and I think we're potentially talking about Muth being a top 5 receiving TE in football and nobody would be complaining about any blocking deficiencies.


I don't disagree, although I'd say with Fitz, it's only using hindsight. People (myself included) complained about trading the 1st for him in the first place (which was Colbert), but nobody complained about that extension when it happened or when he was an All Pro the season after signing it. It's just in the last 2 years where he's fallen off and people have all sorts of theories why.

Queen, there was definitely some push back on with Ravens fans saying he wasn't very good without Smith next to him.

But the point I'm making, if your 2 biggest 'blunders' are 2 players that are still pretty useful, just overpaid, and would be pretty painless to cut in a year, you're in a decent spot.


I don't disagree with most of this. The difference between us are:

1. I think cheaply plugging holes while you build through the draft is the correct approach. Times have changed, but building through the draft is still the best way to build a team. The majority of good players don't make it to FA and the ones that do tend to be expensive. You can quickly find yourself in trouble if you go the FA route.

So saying "outside of the draft, he hasn't been good" is kinda of missing the point IMO. The draft is the MOST important thing and it's the part that I think most people agree he's done a good job so far.

2. I put the blame for players regressing on the coaches, not the GM, which is why I said yesterday that roster construction needs to be separated from coaching.
Click to expand...

Bolded right at the end as I think this is the most interesting because a lot of the time, how do you separate?

Take Queen. Clearly able in the NFL, if maybe not as able as they paid for. Put into a role he's not super suited. Is that coaching for using him the wrong way? Or roster construction for getting the wrong tools for the coach? Both?

There's definitely a very similar question with the secondary and Fitzpatrick. I think to a certain extent you can ask whether an OL full of kids and a few veterans was a good idea, which impacts Seumalo. And on and on through most of the team.

It's a bit easier to separate coaching instead of roster construction when a bunch of kids with good grades and seemingly good fits come in and it doesn't really happen, or they start going a bit loopy. But for plug and play dudes? I feel like it's all working hand in hand. So it's tough for me to say things like Fitzpatrick no longer being the same guy, for instance, is just coaching

Re the rest

- I see your argument about being flexible while rebuilding and it changing priorities on who to get in FA. I'm not sure I entirely buy it. This team has handed out plenty of three year of contracts and I see the top teams grabbing one year patches all the time. Maybe the team's situation changes the balance a bit, but I think it's still similar enough that I don't see it really changing the sort of player the team will be bringing in. Maybe a stronger team means looking for less veteran mentors and more guys in their prime, which would help.

- There's definitely scheme issues with all the DL, that's fair, but I still catch myself wondering if extending Highsmith was the right move rather than looking for a tag and trade. Also, while agreeing that unlocking Muth's full pass catching potential would change people's opinions a lot, I think there'd still be a tension that the team can't fully do what it wants. I mean, I already believe in Muth as a top 10-5 receiving TE, and I still find myself wishing for a more do it all TE. But that's being a bit greedy too.

- There's certainly a lot of hindsight here, but then, isn't hindsight quite useful for judging?

Yeah, I think everyone wanted Fitzpatrick extended when they did. Doesn't change that it's gone a bit sideways and there's some questions about what happened there and why.

- Finally, re draft vs fa/trade. It was more you mentioned it and I disagreed quite a lot than importance.

I think the draft is more important, yeah. You're usually getting your foundational pieces there. But I do think how a team handles trade and FA is still pretty important. That's often the one last foundational piece, or finding key depth, and so on. I think that's particularly so for a team that got themselves pretty behind on the talent front. I don't think the disparity is enough to say good drafting, all's good. If the team is still struggling to recruit the right fits when they next take a shot with a rookie QB, it's going to be an issue - particularly if they spend a lot of draft capital to get that guy.
 
Also this should be good for our comp formula. There was a rumor that Cleveland was going to wait to sign Russ until after the draft which would purposely negate any potential comp pick we would receive.
 
MrBrightside said:
I can't imagine that having Wilson and Winston would preclude them from taking a QB if they think one is worthy of that choice.
Click to expand...
Jameis at ~4m AAV is backup money.

Russ at 21m (granted about half of that is guarantees) is bridge QB money.

I just think there are way better BPA than Shedeur at 1.03
 
WickedWrister said:
Jameis at ~4m AAV is backup money.

Russ at 21m (granted about half of that is guarantees) is bridge QB money.

I just think there are way better BPA than Shedeur at 1.03
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with that. There's no world I'd take Sanders over whichever of Carter and Hunter is available (although the Giants really don't need Carter). My only point is that if you really have a top 3 overall grade on Sanders and believe that he's a franchise QB, I don't think that signing Wilson for one year would stop you from taking Sanders.
 
Empoleon8771 said:
I don't see a way that a team would sign 2 pretty established QBs only to also draft a QB in the top-5. If they're drafting a QB in the top-5, they're likely competing for the starting job if not outright starting right away.
Click to expand...

MrBrightside said:
Because they pick 3rd and there are at most 2 QB's worth a high pick? I just can't think that one year of Wilson would stop a team from drafting a QB that they'd otherwise take top 3 overall - if so, that's incompetence of a staggering magnitude.
Click to expand...

Look at it from a different angle.

Wilson isn't of the talent level where he'd stop a team from drafting their guy, no. But he is of the talent level - and numeration, and ego - where he doesn't really make sense for a team that's expecting to draft a guy - certainly not with Winston there as well.

As such, I'd be pretty surprised if the Giants drafted a QB as well. Not because I think they'll think they're set, but because I think this move signals that they believe Ward and Sanders are going 1-2 and they're not interested in Dart so therefore they need a plan that doesn't involve drafting a guy. Could be wrong, but that's what makes the most sense to me.
 
bigdaddyk88 said:
Not so sure it’s Steelers or bust. Maybe they just guarantee 20 million. Dart is probably going top 10 i guess they can go Milroe Howard in round 2
Click to expand...

Uh where are you getting your QB draft projections from?
 
MrBrightside said:
I don't disagree with that. There's no world I'd take Sanders over whichever of Carter and Hunter is available (although the Giants really don't need Carter). My only point is that if you really have a top 3 overall grade on Sanders and believe that he's a franchise QB, I don't think that signing Wilson for one year would stop you from taking Sanders.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't necessarily think the amount of money the Giants just gave Russ excludes them from taking a QB at 3, but to me it does signal that they're out on Rodgers at least. And that they wanted to shore up their QB depth before the draft.

I just think Travis Hunter is a unicorn. If he's a CB1 and can give you even ~25 impact snaps per game on offense, that's so much surplus value over a rookie contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBrightside
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom