Bleacher Report ranks Urbik #7 right OG, Foster #18

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1071 ... h-steelers

You guys probably get these bleacher reports too but this week's article about the league's best right OG's kind of sticks in my craw. I realize this is just one writer's opinion but in evaluating the rest of his list, he has some cred, imo. We had Urbik penciled in to be a starting OG for the next 10 years but let him slip through our fingers. Makes me wonder how we evaluate talent (or not) especially when it comes to our offensive line. What's next - Tony Hills NFL's top offensive tackle?

 

I have said the problem is the demand on position versatility and the inability to stray from it when it makes the most sense. Urbik couldn't play tackle, but Trai Essex could? So what happens? You get a very average guard with no upside in Essex and cut Urbik who was a rookie who had room to grow and you lose him to another team? Doesn't make sense to me. As a third rounder, unless you think he is total trash, you have to keep him on your team for at least one year to see what happens.

I'll be honest Urbik and Keith Williams didn't impress in the preseason, but I would have kept both on the roster in the respective years they were drafted to see if they could grow.

Another thing that both helps and hurts the Steelers is how much they like veterans. Your team is more prepared that way so that is a plus, but then you have many other teams who play their rookies and they turn in really solid years. Letting your rookies play through it isn't always a bad thing. More often than not it is, but not always.

 

FYI (not that it matters much) but they did keep Urbik on the team for a year...it was his second year that he got canned. Which I still agree was the wrong move.

 

IMO, I never saw Urbik get a chance. Sometimes coaches and the FO can get look at things with the blinders on...he didn't practice well. Yep, he was somewhat slow and he didn't practice well, but he CAN play the game on Sunday. Sometimes you just have to give guys a chance. We gave James Harrison a chance at one point after having passed. Urbik's release was a mistake. Dale Lolley thought it was the right decision...I didn't see it even at the time.

 

urbik didn't even start at buffalo until a 1st round pick went down. he stunk up the joint there. now we are talking 5 years before he got his shot. they said he wasen't very good there either. how this guy is ranking him as the 9th best guard is a real stretch to me. of course don't forget we had larry z. as a line coach then too, and ben has a way of making linemen look worse then they are.

 

i'm sorry, i didn't see the right guard only part. i thought it was overall. that's a different story. still the guy he replaced is pretty good to but injuries have killed his game.

 

Here's the deal with Urbik. Because we traded out of the 2nd and into the 3rd, he was our 2nd pick in the 2009 draft. It may have been a 3rd rounder, but he was our 2nd pick. Those are high expectations. For a RG, a mid-3rd rounder should be starting by his 2nd year easily, if not sooner. Especially on a team that doesn't have anyone there.

He was terrible in preseason when he saw the field. Horrible. So after his rookie season in which he didn't see the field, and an ugly 2nd preseason, he was cut. Now he's starting in Buffalo and we have a hole at guard. Is he really that good? Is it just that Buffalo sucks? I don't know, I don't care. Not what I'm interested in. But I do find it interesting that many, many fans compain about our coaches and GM making decisions based on draft status instead of proven performance. "Why wasnt Sweed cut during his rookie season?? Grisham has been working his ass of! It's jsut cuz Sweed is a 2rd round pick! Thes guys donno wat there doin i should be runin things....." Well, usually guys taken higher in the draft were done so for a good reason. It makes sense that they are the ones that eventually get it together, for whatever reason.

I am the first to admit Urbik was awful here, and I haven't seen anything he's done in Buffalo so I won't comment on that. I did want to give him one more redshirt at the time, because of his draft status and potential. If we'd kept him, would he be starting here? Maybe we'll never know. But I think it's a lesson for all of us who want to pay NO mind to what players have in college or draft status. Calling them all equal -- letting a 1st round pick and a 7th round pick duke it out and giving them an equal chance of making the team -- and thinking that is what's best might seem smart, but it's so short-sighted. There were people who are on this very board that wanted Cortez Allen cut because he hadn't done anything in training camp and the first couple preseason games due to injury, and thought his spot should go to some guy I don't even remember. Of course, I think he went on to get an INT on his first ever play on an NFL field, and is now one of our most promising young players. They kept him around just because of his draft status, and it's a good thing they did.

 

Hell we gave what three years to prove himself, thats way to much time.
He STINKS JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE OL, except POUNCY.

 

I think he was let go before krugler got here.....enough said.

 

Yep he sucks no story here

 

He was cut like 16 months after he was drafted.

 

Not enough time to fully evaluate his potential, IMO. Hell, how long has a dud like trai essex been allowed to stay on? Answer - 7 years.