Could we steal Kareem Hunt this off season?

Wasn't that VW98's lil bro? Don't know for sure or what the incident was.

 

The OP was a bad idea just getting worse.

 

Considering the events that have recently transpired. You may have to wonder if a bottle of vodka is also to blame for the original idea...

 

Yes he is but Howard can as well without the drama. He could be a 3 down back as well and probably at a decent price. We do have Samuels for that as well. With Ben, Samuels was more effective. I like Conner but just fragile.

 

They have cut fringe players in the past, too. Cedric Wilson was an example of that.

Brown was an entirely different story. If his meeting with Rooney went better and he said he wanted to stay even after the crap at the end of the 2018 season, do you really think they would have traded him?

They went all-in on Roethlisberger, who has his own ugly history. Not only did they give him a huge extension, but you also have to consider Colbert's comments about Roethlisberger being the grown-up to whom the other players should listen. (I know those weren't his exact words, but that's what he said.)

Chickillo is a great example of how things haven't really changed that much. We don't know what they would have known, but we know that they did keep him.

It's nice to believe our favorite team occupies some moral high ground, but the evidence over the years indicates otherwise.

 

hunt 112 catches. Conner 89 catches. Howard 82 catches.

 

Hunt 116 catches 35 games 2 1/2 year.......Howard 82 catches 57 games 4 years.

 

Hunt had 8 games last year Howard 10. Both very under used. Howard had a lot more rush yards then hunt last year. Both with new teams. The premise is both can do it. Howard isn't a problem child and comes at a very friendly price.

 

Howard had 10 rec last year and 20 the year before that. Howard is not Hunt on the field, Howard has always shared the back field with guys. Howard had Cohen(sp) in Chicago who came in on 3rd downs. I like Howard but I want a more well rounded back, a 3 down back. My goal is to not have 4 back for 2 different situations. Conner is a complete back but can't stay healthy, Snell lacks the burst and Samuels is the 3rd down guy. I really like Whyte a lot and maybe he takes Samuels roll and adds the burst we need. I do not disagree with you about Howard not being a problem and coming cheap but you know who is even cheaper......Lamical Perine, Zack Moss and AJ Dillon. All 3 are very good prospects who can catch and be lead backs. Also project 3rd or lower round picks.

 

Rooney still chose to meet with Brown after the latter blew off the initial attempts to contact him, so no, he wasn't gone the minute he blew off their calls. It was that meeting that finally got the team to give in to his demand to be traded. They traded Brown because he insisted.

I don't believe for a second that the Chickillo thing was a misunderstanding. It was a domestic dispute in which both parties got out of hand, then decided they didn't want to press charges against one another.

 

I'd say a couple cases of vodka and pounds of weed should do it...

 

He was primarily a 3rd down back in Cleveland because Chubb was there eating up all the carries. Not sure I agree with the 2 down back opinion

 

Only because he was suspended and Chubb was the number 1 back. In his first 2 years in KC he was a 3 down back all day long, can't take what he did with the Clowns as an example.

What don't you agree with, when we had Bell as a 3 down back how did we do? Now we have 4 RB's to cover that position. Yeah Conner did well and was a 3 down back but can't stay healthy. Who do we have in that role and why add another 2 down guy to the group?

 

The owner traveled to meet with Brown to discuss details if trading Brown? You really think that reason is more likely than he was still trying to salvage the relationship? I think my take on it makes a lot more sense. If all they are doing is working out how the trade is going to happen, there is no need for Rooney to be there.

The league taking Chickillo off the exempt list is not the same as clearing him. It just means they didn’t have enough evidence for further discipline. It wasn't a misunderstanding. It was a domestic disturbance in which both parties decided not to press charges to protect each other, themselves or both.

 

The Steelers wouldn't be interested in Hunt, I can't believe fans want to bring this guy to Pittsburgh .

 

Find something to move on from Chickillo please.

 

We have a better chance of them changing the name of the stadium to Hunts field before we see Hunt in a Steelers uniform...

 

But as you said, Hunt is not a 2 down guy, he's very clearly a talented 3 down back. You said so yourself that he was a 3 down back in KC, so not sure why you think he's suddenly a 2 down back.

 

No I am saying Howard is not a 3 down back.........I am and have been saying that was why I wanted Hunt..........before this new off field stuff, now it it bye bye.

 

Oh, my mistake. We were talking about 2 different things.

 

That doesn't really answer my question. If all they had already decided to move on and all they had to do was sort out details, why would the owner need to be involved? It is far more logical that Rooney was involved because they were trying to work things out. I know you wanted him gone at that point, but that doesn't mean the team was on the same page as you.

Colbert can relay that message just as easily as Rooney. If they really believed he couldn't be salvaged going into that meeting, why would they think he was going to listen to either of them, anyway?

I'm not saying your scenario is impossible, but mine is more likely to be correct.

To bring this back from the tangent to the actual discussion, neither the situation with Brown nor the one with Chickillo provide any real evidence that the team is less inclined to keep or take on guys with character issues. We've heard talk of such commitments before, but the team keeps going back to bringing in jackasses because they can play.

To me, it is all just spin. The Steelers lost some tremendous talent with Bell and Brown with very little return. Their best option for selling those departures was to talk about improving the locker room, trying to get people to buy into addition by subtraction. The Roethlisberger injury covered up the fact that it was actually a matter of subtraction by subtraction. Of course the offense is worse without Brown and Bell. You can argue that those departures were unavoidable, but beneficial? Sorry. No.

I wouldn't have been shocked to see them kick the tires on Hunt if the Browns let him go. (I believe he is a restricted free agent). Of course, this latest incident is going to scare off quite a few teams. I assume the Steelers will be among them. They have a long history of sticking by guys who do bad things, but bringing them players in after they have multiple strikes against them is another matter. Vick was an anomaly in that regard.

 

I think it's despicable what he did, but that alone wouldn't cause me to forever write off a player. I couldn't possibly care less about the weed and booze in the car. That's absolutely a non issue for me. If I had the insider knowledge like Colbert and Tomlin do, I would evaluate what kind of a person he's been since his incident. The NFL is a small community and they know what the players are up to and what kind of people they are.

If that incident was a one off for Hunt and he's been good since then, I would sign him. With that said, I also agree with KC cutting him when they did. There needs to be repercussions, but I also wouldn't necessarily write off a player forever due to a relatively minor domestic incident.