should some house cleaning happen?

That's what everyone here seems to think. After that post in the Gameday thread, I'm not convinced

 

i'm talking even since ziggy. we had smith aging and casey aging and we knew it. why did we sit on heyward and mclendon and lewis as a DB so long? we were not really after a SB and these vets were or had lost much of their playmaking ability. was casey playing so much better last year that he couldn't sit 5-8 more plays a game for mclendon to get added reps? we knew farrior and foote were in the last stages of their career's yet they played the whole year. we weren't on a can't miss run to the SB that year.

I think we over relyed on the vets, before we even knew if their replacement could play way too late in the process and this is what we are left with.

shamarko barely saw the field last week. I would have loved to see his 4.3 speed chasing pryor down the field. if we know clark isn't going to be back next year, this kid should be in on half the snaps to see a bigger body of work to see if he can handle it next year before he's all we have.

is golden really the answer next to him? we don't know. should we draft another one? we don't know. do we need a FA? we don't know.

we know Curtis brown isn't going to amount to squat for us, so we are using a guy that could be starting at safety next year playing CB most of the time. we have ike in his last year or two with nobody to step into his spot. or gay's. we have cortez, which has been relegated to nickel and nothing in the pipeline that gets meaningful snaps. we haven't been in a serious SB run for 3 years now. only a downturn in our aging, injured starters with no plan for a replacement.

 

Do you basically think we've been TOO loyal? I think the real answer to that question will come at the end of this year if things go horribly bad from here on out. It's either we've been too loyal or we've not coached guys up quick enough wouldn't you say?

 

For me it's not that I need to ignore her. It just seemed like something bit discusting coming fro a female.

 

One thing that we have not been good is when to let vets playing time diminish. But the coaches will probably tell you that they would rather have an underperforming vet in there then a rookie. The vet would have to be god awful before they sit him for a rookie.

I agree that Clark should be on the bench but Sharmarko may not be ready for that job yet. All we need is for him to miss a critical assignment and everyone would be calling him a bust. But then again we already give up big plays so what's the big deal.

Our coaching staff have always favorite veterans over rookies. Especially on defense. And that's because of the intricasies of Dick Lebeau's system. But I've always said if the system is too hard for the players then you need to change/simplfy the system to fit the players.

 

let's take hoke for instance. he saw enough plays during the season that we knew he could play. he just aged along with casey though and we were left empty. the last year's we had nobody in the pipeline to look at. we drafted ta'amu and had mclendon, but they never saw the field enough to even evaluate under live fire. no clear body of work.

is al woods good enough to take this role or is this the time fangupo should be playing a quarter of the snaps to see if we keep either next year? that's just one example of what I mean.

no clear cut plan for a transition, because we don't play the next guy in line enough to know, then wait way too long with some vets, even backup vets to see if the next guys are worthy.

 

And then you ask yourself how can Belichik have a 6-2 record with 14 rookies on his 53 roster, that sorta kills the theory you need old veterans around with big contracts to tutor the rooks, and it also says the coaches in NE are doing some real coaching to bring these rookies along, when the cap is as high as ours is, and we're still losing, it means it's time for a house cleaning and to make a youth movement ASAP:

[h=3]Bill Belichick has 14 rookies on his roster, twice the average he's carried over the last decade in New England.[/h]


If it seems like there are a lot of rookies on the Patriots 53-man roster heading into the 2013 season, there is a really good reason for that. Because there are a lot of rookies on the roster, more than was the case heading into any other season in New England in more than a decade.

As of Tuesday morning the Patriots had 14 rookies – including draft picks, undrafted rookies and undrafted rookies claimed off waivers – on the 53-man roster. According to the Boston Globe, New England has more rookies (14) and more undrafted rookies (7) than any other team in the NFL at this point.

 

Mac – great posts…I think you are onto something here.

And this relates to one of my biggest criticisms of LeBeau. We always hear how complex his defense his that he literally has something like a 3 inch ring binder of all the possible things you can do in his defense. And this is why young guys sit for so long. Well I’m sorry, but get over yourself – if you can’t simplify the system enough in some ways for young guys to pick this stuff up quicker than you are not doing enough as a coordinator. Or maybe Tomlin who seems to act more like a figurehead isn’t doing enough to crack heads and say “hey we got to get these kids more friggin snaps.” We talk about coaching players up – part of coaching players up is putting them in situations where you believe they can succeed and seeing how they do. Not sitting on the bench scratching their azz.

Funny story I heard earlier in the year from Steeler Depot. One of the main reasons they wanted to keep Foote was because of his experience and his ability to call the defense. When Foote got hurt, Kion Wilson came in and this is the guy they gave the headset duties to – a scrub backup who had been on the Steelers all of 3-4 weeks. Now, pray tell, what kind of preparation is that? If the system is so complex, does the coaching staff prepare for redundancy – I mean Lawrence Timmons has been playing in the defense for 6 years now….wouldn’t he have been a better choice for wearing the headset and calling the defense? Or is it that maybe all these complexities don’t mean as much as LeBeau thinks they do and someone can pick up the Buck LB pretty quick.

 

and yet again
you missed the point ,Glenn was talking about a whole different post.
what size bus do you ride?Since you get soooooo giddy over bus size.
run forest

i'll explain my earlier post

I think the oline just doesn't care to block for ben.
it's happened in the NFL before,
butthey
go about your business of poking fun of small kids with dreams,sunshine.

 

What has happened over the years is a bit like playing the lottery. You know, you play one number or set of numbers year after year and they don't hit. You are afraid to play other numbers because you think if you do and your old numbers come up, you will kill yourself.

Now, relate that to the Steelers and the need to make changes. If we trade Woodley for example, suppose he goes somewhere else and plays lights out. It is then, I told you so. But that is what happened with Chad Brown and did we really miss him?

Look, there will be a few dents if we trade or release. It is life, it is the business. To get better, changes have to be made and they are all unfortunately not going to come thru the draft unless we can trade for more picks and even then, it is more than unlikely the Steelers will be made significantly better by just adding one or two players.

Just as it is with a business, folks have got to let it go. Again, if Woodley can get us some picks, then do the trade. If we need to release some underachievers then so be it. In the long run it should work out.

I don't believe we would be that much better with Wallace or Harrison this year either. The problems run to deep. We hate to see guys go, but that is the nature of the business. Kickers are the easiest to part with, yet a good FG kicker wins or loses more games than probably any other position player.

rutan