Free agency grade thus far?

I realize that the free agency period is incomplete so we can't make a final judgment just yet, but I have to say that so far the Steelers have disappointed in the 2014 free agency signing period. If I had to grade it, I'd either give it a C- or a D+. I don't know, maybe I expected a little more when both Kevin Colbert and Art Rooney stated that the team would be more active in free agency this year. To follow is a summary of my reasoning:

Free agents signed:

Mike Mitchell, S -- This is by far the Steelers biggest signing in the off-season and we're hoping for Ryan Clark 2.0. I'm hopeful that Mitchell can continue to develop and that Lake will get him to the point that he realizes his full potential. He seems to be a smart guy and has the physical attributes, but let's not forget that he's had one good NFL season and couldn't crack the Raiders starting lineup in the 4 or 5 years that he was there.

Cam Thomas, DT -- This is more than a depth signing. With the losses on our DL in the off-season Thomas needs to come in and compete for a starting job. He had a starting job in San Diego last year which he proceeded to lose about three-fourths of the way through the season.

Lance Moore, WR -- This was a MUST signing after Cotchery got away from us. Moore's numbers declined significantly last year in NO and he does have some age on him now. Was last year an anomaly or can he regain the form he had prior to 2013? Time will tell.

Arthur Moats, LB -- Another depth signing. He's 26 years old so maybe he can be coached up in our system and become an adequate backup. Honestly, he was nothing more than moderately mediocre in Buffalo so I don't expect much more than that from him here.


Free agents lost:

Emmanuel Sanders, WR -- EVERYBODY pretty much expected this one unless you've been living on another planet. After all, he is part of the original "Young Money HUNGRY Crew". Sanders loss would not have been quite the blow it was had we not lost...

Jerricho Cotchery, WR -- Now this one hurt and was a bit of a surprise. Ben REALLY wanted Cotch back as he had developed a great chemistry with him over the last couple of seasons. He was our best RZ threat last year, hands down, and the 10 TDs reflect that. The Panthers just signed him to a ridiculous contract that we weren't about to match and there was apparently some nudging by his better half to move her to Carolina too.

Jonathan Dwyer, RB -- Dwyer was not a superstar but he was an adequate backup to Bell. He's certainly capable of carrying the load as a starter for short stretches as well. I really believe this loss was more significant that many believe.

Al Woods, DT/DE -- Woods was starting to come into his own last year and actually was a pretty solid performer. I'm not sure why he was so quick to get out of Pittsburgh but apparently he steathily pursued the opportunity with the Titans even after the Steelers made it clear that they wanted to try to retain him. The Steelers could have probably kept him at what he ended up getting with the Titans. This one is hard to understand and hurt from a depth standpoint. Woods would have probably been given an opportunity to earn the starting job. Perplexing.

Ziggy Hood, DE -- Hood got his money from one of the worst organizations in football. He's pretty much been a disappointment but he was capable of making splash plays on occasion and I would have been good with him sticking around. Our DL has taken a major blow this off-season and Da Beard is probably not coming back either.

Players we've re-signed:
Cody Wallace, Guy Whimper, Greg Warren, Michael Palmer. Okay for depth but that's it.

Players that have visited and have left without a contract and/or signed elsewhere:

James Starks, RB -- I was REALLY hoping that we'd find a way to get it done with this guy. I'm not sure exactly what transpired but his meeting was postponed until later last week and in the interim he decided to re-sign with the Packers. Should we have, could we have been more aggressive in trying to get him in and get him signed? Who knows.

Alex Carrington, DE -- This is another guy that I'd really like to see in the B&G. I think he has a TON of unrealized potential and would soften the blow after the mass exodus of defensive linemen. I guess there's still a chance we could sign him since he's still on the market.

Now I think it was a big win to retain Worilds or this thing may be a D- or an F at this point. We are perennially battling salary cap issues when other competitive teams like the Broncos and the Patriots seem to have tons of cap space. I just don't understand that but then again I don't claim to be a capologist like some of my MB brethren. IMHO, the Steelers have not impressed in free agency this year SO FAR. I'm willing to wait until the end to give it a final grade, but my interim grade has them not making the grade.

Any differing viewpoints out there?

 

mitchell A
thomas B
moore B
moats C

overall B

 

I like the Mitchell signing. As for the rest they are backups, and with our limited depth I'm good with them. IF we can sign Blount somehow, that will be an A+ signing. Bell and Bount would be awesome.

 

Mitchell was a good signing for us but I would have rather seen them draft Clinton-Dix.
Cam Thomas isn't an impact signing.
Moats is a Keyaron Fox type signing when we could have brought Harrison back. Don't like it.
Would love to get Maurice Jones-Drew I do believe he still has football left in him.
Lance Moore is a decent pick up, nothing major. He and Cotchery are probably the same.
Carrington would be a great pickup for us, I feel he can turn it on in Pittsburgh.
C+

 

I agree with what I'm reading thus far about Blount. He would improve the grade by a letter or two!

 

Worilds over Woodley... A hard but necessary decision. Overall grade from me is B+.

As far as our FA losses, we were pretty helpless for the most part. Other teams willing to pay more than they'd be worth here. I guess our disagreement stems from the signings... I like them all, and you seem pessimistic on all of them.

 

With absolutely no evidence to support this, it's my opinion that Starks was always going to re-sign with the Packers.

As for the other moves... tend to agree with Jack's assessment.

 

Great perspective, Snack. Very interesting take on Mitchell. Hope you're on the money with that!

 

Hard to grade it this soon, but maybe a B-. I really like the Mitchell and Moore signings. Mitchell has an opportunity to be a very good starter in our system and Moore will be a very good 3rd or 4th option for Ben. The other guys are depth who could possibly start in a pinch. If we get either Blount or MJD in the Burgh for a decent price AND get Worilds locked up long term, I think the Steelers will have done a very good job in the FA period with the $$$ we had to work with.

 

C- FROM ME.. lost a lot more then we picked up so not sure how we can grade that above a C.. if we get blount and i think thats a HUGE IF ... id move that to C+

HINES

 

You make a very good point but I have to ask again, how is it that we have the same cap issues year after year and seem to be one of the most cash strapped teams in the league year after year? The problem is that many of our primary AFC competitors (Broncos, Pats) seem to have plenty of cap space available to sign the players they want and need. I realize that we committed to some huge contracts during the Super Bowl years a few years ago and I'm sure there is still a legacy effect from that, but other than that I'm not sure. Any thoughts?

 

The other part is that with success at so many positions it makes them highly desirable. Doesn't matter if it is the system or ability that gives them success because teams like the Raiders this year can over pay to get them. This forced some really bad deals to keep average players. The Max Starks and Willie Colon deal come to mind. This year it is Worilds that will bite them in the backside further down the road.

 

B-

I actually like that they are turning over the front of the defense (including Woodley with the DL.) It just wasn't working. No knock on any player specifically, sometimes you have to change the pieces.

 

No YOU go to hel--wait what?

 

I'd say a C so far. Although we are not really going to know until next year. Some depth signings and Mitchell was a one year wonder down here in a different system. If Mitchell comes in and balls like he did in Charlotte I'd bump it up to a B. I think Blount would be a good pick up for the right price. Hopefully they can land Carrington too. We had to get younger at some point.

 

My thought is that the NFL is designed to do just what you mentioned above. If you field a Super Bowl quality team, you have a lot of good players that deserve to get paid. You can go two routes from there...

Route 1: Pay the players you have and ride their contracts into the end of their careers in order to have a good 7 year (or so) window at winning as many Super Bowls as you can.
-Pros - familiarity and longevity of the starting rotation, being a legit contender year in and year out, long window for success, very little roster turnover during your run, very little reliance on rookies and young players
-Cons - pay big money to a lot of different players to keep the team together, strapped for cash, always restructuring to keep key pieces, team will eventually get old and have a complete roster turnover at the end of the run
** The Steelers definitely adopted this philosophy and it was highly successful. We won 2 superbowls and went to a 3rd. Also lost in the AFCCG. When you go with this strategy you have to win while your window is open, and we did.

Route 2: Pay only the players you feel are essential to your success (maybe 2 or 3 guys) and continually reload and retool your roster in order to find the cheapest players possible that you feel are serviceable starters. Go find a big FA or 2 that you think will send your team over the top.
-Pros: Not really strapped for cash, always have a chance to sign big name FA's, wont have to completely retool team after your run is over.
-Cons: high roster turnover between seasons for a contending football team, not much roster familiarity between starters, high reliance on rookies and young players who may or may not turn out
** This is more the Patriots model. They basically pay a small handful of players and play "money ball" with the rest of their roster. They too have been highly successful in terms of Lombardi's so it is tough to say which one is better.

At the end of they day, we are in the "roster turnover" part of our plan. If we draft well though, we will be at the beginning of a new window for success shortly. I don't think we will be nearly as strapped for cash in 2015 and 2016 as we are now. The cap will go up, and we wont have as many players kill us with big money restructures like Woodley and Ike on our books anymore. Just my thoughts...

 

Just because Colbert said they would be more active doesn't mean they were going to sign some high priced free agents like Denver did, they didn't have the cap space. If they signed Blount I would give them a grade of B, they are filling some holes and got younger on defense.

 

Living in Tampa I've seen enough of Blount to know I have no desire to see it.

Honestly, overall I'd say B+ to an A- only reason being is we filled holes that weren't that larger to begin with. We got a younger Third reciever a younger saftey guy that started and a potential ST stud ( moats ).

I like it. I say great job with very little shake up at the top. I think that's key. Sometimes you bring in those big names with big egos and I think chemistry and locker room is a quality that is overlooked from time to time. Eg. Talib has talent but do you want him in the locker room??

 

first of all hello neighbor.. we live on sand key clearwaer beach 6 months a year when we are not up north promoting sports events.. secondly ... how the heck can most people agree that we lost more than we have sigend but yet most of the members here are grading our FA year above a C and many are grading it an A and B and they are the same people saying we have lost more then we resigned? how can we lose more then we got and its above average?

HINES

 

I think it might be that they know the commodity of al woods but don't know how cam thomas will play etc.

Most of these signings filled a hole and I feel the holes are upgraded. Woods over a previous starter in the same type 3-4, I like it.

 

I think we have done a "okay" job so far. Mitchell was a very good signing, but the only way for me to really evaluate this stuff is by looking at the total move up or down. Was the move an improvement or a negative...on paper at least? Until I see what the draft looks like, this is hard to tell.