Only 2 run for Warren vs Falcons

I'm sorry your interpretation is different that the meaning of the words. Can't help you there, man. You're just going to have to realize that sometimes words aren't literal and you can't just attack words that aren't put in literal terms as "misleading" and call it an argument.

Those games are just as important as the rest of them. I was just pointing out a few anomalous games that skewed a trend for Najee. That is all.

I'd like to know what you would consider a "good" game for a running back you consider a top 10 player at his position? He has 6 career games in which he's gained 100 yards (despite being second in the league in carries during his career, and first in touches), and only 12 games out of 54 that he has gotten better than 4.5 yards per carry (4 of which came in games we got absolutely blown out in, so there is an element of garbage time yardage in those). If you think that Najee's career has been full of "good" games, you might have too low of a bar for what constitutes "good". Najee has been far from a "good" back in his career. It's the unfortunate truth.

 

1. You can make excuses for Edmunds all you like, but he was well below average for the Steelers and even worse when he left. The numbers and the fate of his career have shown us that. He's not even close to being as good of a safety as Harris is a running back.

2. Yes, you are. None of those other skills matter if you can't protect the ball. Fumbles can be disastrous. Try typing Rashard Mendenhall's name into Google, then add the word Super Bowl. Guess what comes up,

3. When you present the situations as equivalent and they are not, that is misleading.

4. Most of the discussion of the Steelers is focused on whether or not they made an error in refusing his fifth-year option. Just because they made a mistake doesn't mean he isn't a top-10 back. His statistics demonstrate that he is a top-10 back and your opinion of his film doesn't change that. Hiding among others who misjudge Harris doesn't make you right.

5. Fair enough means I'm right. Thank you.

 

1. Not making excuses. I've typed out multiple times that I considered Edmunds a below average starter in his time in Pittsburgh, not sure why you continue to act otherwise. Just pointing out that the role he played made it less likely that big plays would show up. Kyle Dugger is an extraordinary player and he doesn't have some massive big play stat sheet. Just the life of a box safety.

2. Disagree. Yeah, fumbles are bad, but being a better than average fumbler isn't as important that being a better than average runner. A bad runner who doesn't fumble isn't a better player than a good runner who is an average fumbler.

3. No. They are equivalent as in they are both the Steelers FO. The only difference is Khan/Weidl instead of Colbert. The coach and ownership are the same. It's not like its a massive overhaul. You have a weird habit of taking other people's words to mean a certain thing, then attacking that as dishonest or misleading instead of arguing against the substance of the argument. You do this all the time... Arguing the intent of other people's words is a great defense mechanism for not having an argument at all. That is how it comes across.

4. I don't believe they made a mistake. I don't think Harris isn't that good because we declined his option, I think he isn't that good because of how he looks when he plays. Just because I see him differently than you doesn't mean I've misjudged him, it is possible that you are the one misjudging him. Keep in mind the position "Najee Harris is a top 10 back in the NFL" puts you in the minority, not me. The Steelers, the NFL analytics, and the NFL media have all shown that they don't view him that way. He still has a chance to prove everyone wrong, but I am not holding my breath at this point. Your argument rests solely on statistical numbers without making any concessions to the fact that Najee has touched the ball more than any non QB player in the league since he has been in the NFL. He looks like a top 10 back statistically because he's touched the ball at a rate of a top 1 back... he wouldn't be statistically top 10 with a normal workload. That is the whole basis of my argument.

5. No one is "right". I argued a point, you said you meant something different, so instead of telling you that you were "intentionally misleading me" I just took you for your word and concluded that we don't have an argument to fight over here. Fair enough.

 

There have been good points made on both sides of this. I think Najee is a good back whose productivity could be argued to be average, especially in light of the amount of draft capital that was invested in him. He's been hurt by having a skillset that hasn't played well with the supporting cast around him, including a substandard OC. He lacks elite burst, has average vision, is a punishing runner best suited for north/south concepts, has good hands, durability, and ball control.

While I understand why they did it, the Steelers plainly did the wrong thing for him by taking him and Freiermuth before addressing the line in 2021. Three years later they'e still trying to get a stable trench unit, and have (hopefully) brought in a competent OC to guide the playcalling. Meanwhile the emergence of Warren cut into Harris' receiving touches. It is what it is, but Harris has still produced some respectful numbers despite a situation that really wasn't set up well for him. Some of his better performances over the last two years have come in the second half of the season, when the lines were starting to come together, which leads me to think he has a good ceiling with the additions of Frazier and Fautanu.

Bottom line for me is that Harris produced enough in his first three seasons that I would picked up the option. Even if his stats remain the same they justify the amount (APY values for options and extension typically encompass the year in which they are exercised/signed, so he actually would have graded out at $5.5M for point of comparison), and I still see room for growth in the next two years with the pieces they've added. The FO, however, disagreed. So I'm intrigued to see where they go in the offseason.

 

I think your first paragraph is fair. I don't necessarily think Najee is a "good" back, but he isn't a "bad" back either. It is a massively underwhelming return for a player that we invested so much into. He has bottom of the barrel burst, below average vision, and I agree he is best suited for a north/south concept (and probably is just an early 2000's back stuck playing in 2024). It takes him forever to get to top speed, but once he is there he is hard to bring down. He has good hands for sure, but it is hard to utilize him in the passing game because of how poor he is in the open field. We're just better off throwing it to Warren and Patterson than Najee, no matter how good his hands are. Good blocker, good ball control, and obviously durable too.

As for the second part, you're right. We SHOULD have drafted OL instead of RB in that draft. I can live with the Freiermuth pick, but we absolutely needed to go to the trenches with that first pick. We had Conner on the team and opted to let him go in favor of Harris, it just turns out that building an OL around Conner was the correct decision as Conner turned out to be the better player of the two. Hopefully the OL unit we have continues to improve so that whoever we pick up to replace Najee will perform well.

Its fine that you think it was enough, but I wouldn't have picked his option up. 5 million is probably about right for him and TBH, I just think we're better off trying to go elsewhere. We can go for Judkins or Henderson in the draft and try to do better than Harris... or find someone to pair with Warren in FA that costs less money. Either way it gets Warren the ball more and I think that is the most important part.

 

I guess you forgot there was a run on OL in that Najee draft, all the legit first round tackles were gone so they probably took the highest rated player on their board. Maybe you would've been happy if the Steelers reached in that draft like the Raiders did in drafting OT Leatherwood a total bust. Conner isn't better than Najee he's too injury prone .

 

Liam Eichenberg and Landon Dickerson were both available and both are good players. They're both Guards, but I know we had interest in Dickerson pre-draft... Leatherwood was gone 7 picks before us, not sure why he is brought up. And yes, they apparently had Najee as their highest rated player... they just were wrong that he was the best player on the board at the time. We obviously didn't care much about the OL because we passed on Humphrey for Freiermuth in the second.

And yes, Conner is a better player than Harris. The fact that he is injury prone is likely why we moved off him, but the product on the field you get from Conner is higher caliber than what we get from Harris unfortunately.

 

1. When you start talking about the lack of impact by Edmunds being due to his positions, that sure sounds like making an excuse for him.

2. Fumblers end up on the bench. Fumblers cost their teams games. You should know that.

3. Yes, the situations are very different. Khan operates very differently from Colbert. Also, both guys were drafted by Colbert. GMs tend to have a more vested interest in keeping the guys they drafted. I'm not talking about your intent at all. I'm not accusing you of intentionally misleading anybody. It's not about your intent. It's about the comparison bringing us to a misleading conclusion because the front office and positions of the players are so different. You are ignoring important variables. That brings you to a false conclusion.

4. Funny. Ask NFL coaches about the importance of ball security. You would be in the minority there. Why does that matter in this area but not that one?

5. We don't have an argument there. You came around to my position. Good for you.

 

Words are my business. Interpreting them is what I do. Using 3.nothing in that way leads to a false conclusion. I'm not saying you meant to do that. I'm saying that is the result.

I don't think it is true that games matter the same. Playing their best when a season on the line is a positive. I also think it is unfair to try to eliminate the player's best game when evaluating him, which seems to be what you are doing.

 

1. It's a simple explanation, nothing more. All you have to do to is read my words to see that I've said multiple times that Edmunds was a below averages starter. You're willing to make the excuse of bad OL and bad OC for Najee's inability to shine as a player, but when someone else mentions that Edmunds was used in a manner to free Minkah up, thus limiting his own ability for big plays, its making excuses.... Weird. Argue the point, and not my words.

2. Absolutely. Fumbling is bad, but I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that it is more important to be a good runner than it is to have good ball security. If someone fumbles more than league average, then yeah, they are likely to find their way to the bench. But I'll take a good runner that is an average fumbler over a bad runner that has good ball security every day. It is important (like other things), but there is a scale of importance and ball security isn't #1 on anyone's chart. Here we are, again, arguing my words and not my point....

3. You literally used the word "misleading" in response to my point. The coach and the owner have a say in this too, so its not just Khan going rogue and letting Najee walk without cause. An apples to apples situation doesn't exist here, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a relevant discussion around his option not being picked up. Just because its Khan and not Colbert doesn't invalidate the point. You are also ignoring that Khan was the VP of Fooball Admin and Business Admin during the time we picked up Edmunds option. Khan was still a part of that process, even without being the "head guy".

4. Again, I never argued that ball security isn't important. Weird deflection of argument, and yet another example of twisting my words and attacking them instead of actually providing an argument. Its essentially a concession of defeat on the point, so three for four?

5. No position was taken, there just isn't anything to argue over. I could have, you know, twisted your words and attacked them to protect my ever fragile self-perception to be "right" in a stupid online debate over football.... but that just isn't who I am (thankfully).

 

That is fine that we don't agree. I think all 17 regular season games mean the same. The only games that matter more are playoff games. It is hard to say that Najee plays his best when the season is on the line when he has had his worst games in the playoffs. It's awesome that he seems to play well weeks 17 and 18, but why hasn't that translated into postseason success? Mr. Sure-Hands has 24 carries for 66 yards (2.75 YPC), O TD and a lost fumble in the postseason for his career. Are those games part of the "plays best when the season is on the line" discussion? Or do those not matter? I wasn't saying that Najee's last two weeks shouldn't count, they count the exact same as the previous 15 games do. I was just pointing out that two anomalous games are what pulled his average up above his general norm. It is hard to classify those games as anything other than anomalous when he has back to back 100 yard games, and in the previous 50 games played he gained 100 yards in 7% of them... It was just an unlikely outcome, that is all. Had Najee gained 100 yards or more in other games, we might have won a few more games and not been in a "win or go home" situation over the final two weeks of the season.

Same here. I manage 11 businesses that are responsible for over 70 million dollars in revenue for our business. I am highly experienced in the value of words, how they can (and should) be interpreted, and why they matter. I can also hold a conversation outside hardline literal meanings and have a creative enough hold on the English language to be able to understand figures of speech and variable meanings behind words and phrases. Based off your username (among other things), I can assume you are (or were) a writer. Which, of course makes sense since journalists are probably the most skilled people at making sure words fit a pre-determined narrative. Its literally the point of the profession, and you pretty consistently assign meaning to words that fit your narrative whether or not that meaning exists in those words. You are (or were) probably a pretty good writer for it too. But, being a writer doesn't make you the expert on words, nor does it invalidate my words either. Just because you interpret something differently than me (or try to gaslight me into thinking my words do or don't mean what I meant them to be), doesn't make your interpretation the correct one. This is a board to express differences in opinion, and quite frankly, having my words intentionally twisted and misinterpreted for the sole purpose of attacking them instead of my argument... makes for an incredibly messy debate. At least your skills fit your profession perfectly, so good on you for that. However, until you find a substantive argument, it is going to continue to be difficult to have a meaningful debate with you. I'm sorry we don't agree, but that is part of the fun of the message board to begin with.

 

I was actually more upset with the Freiermuth pick than Harris given how the situation was playing out (and nothing against Pat). There were guard options at 1.24 that would have been a bit of a reach, but if they couldn't find a partner to trade down or didn't want to take the chance on a Dickerson where they were, they could have at least secured Humphrey in the second, which would have helped the solidify the middle of the line for Harris (and Ben, as things turned out).

I wouldn't say Connor is a better back. He's good and has done well in Arizona, but they've had better o-line and QB play (despite Murray's injuries), and a better offensive design under Kingsbury and Petzing. At best I think you argue they're closer to equal, with Harris having better durability. (FWIW, Conner's last contract was signed in 2022 when he was 27 and was 3yr/$21M ($7M APY). That figure would probably inflate 5-8% today, making Harris a good deal at $5.5M the next two seasons.)

The Steelers will have several positions to address in the offseason, QB1 and backup, WR, CB among them, and they'll probably want to acquire some DL depth as well. Adding RB to that mix just seemed strange to me, all else considered.

 

I can understand that feeling. Especially since Humphrey turned out to be a stud (I think Frazier might be of the same ilk, so we will see). I thought we liked Dickerson a lot, and it would have made a lot of sense to make that pick and not have to spend money on Seumalo. We could've used that exact money to get a top 10 back via FA and potentially been in a better position.

I can't agree that Conner has gotten better QB play outside of 2021... The last two years has seen Kyler injured and limited and the back-up situation being poor. I consider Conner to be a better player on the field than Harris, but his durability was definitely why the Steelers chose to move on. Which, is fair. But when healthy Conner has just performed better than Harris. He's had five 100 yard games in the last 18 times he's suited up (on poor offenses to boot). It took Harris 50 games to get his 5th 100 yard game. There really isn't too much to say. I get some people like Harris, and that is fine... but my analysis of his game has nothing to do with a biased distaste for the kid or anything, I just don't think he's been very good.

Yeah, it will be interesting to see what we do with QB. I think there is a fair chance that CB has been solved for the time being (we will see how Jackson continues to progress and if Sutton can be relied upon as our main slot CB after he's done serving his suspension). DL would be fine, but I like our depth a lot actually (Adams is an awesome depth player). We might see a pick within the first two days of the draft next year though. RB seems a bit strange to add, but I honestly think it won't be an issue. There are literally dozens of guys that can produce in a similar manner to Harris in the NFL, and a few I like via FA. There are probably a few guys in the draft that would fit the bill too. It will be interesting to see which direction we will take.

 

Eichenberg and Dickerson would've been reaches in the first round , Christian Darrisaw went one pick before the Steelers he was the last first round worthy type of OL left on the board. Dickerson had 2-3 serious knee injuries in college, I doubt they considered him at all in the first round. Part of being a good player is being available for the whole season, when was the last time Conner played an entire season ?

 

Murray missed 15 games between 2022/23, Conner missed four of those. So 11 with the backups, which I understand weren't great, but they actually graded out pretty well against our starters over that span. And like I said, while Kyler did miss some time, Arizona also had notably better o-line play and playcalling.

Connor has been solid when healthy. I think the Steelers moved on from him because of the injuries, and then gambled on being able to piece the line together in the mid-rounds while going RB/TE early. That didn't work out so well, but I probably still have a slightly higher of an opinion of Harris than you despite his flaws.

 

I believe Connor would still be here except for the injuries

 

1. Edmunds still had opportunities to make big plays. He just rarely made them, even when compared to other box safeties. Harris, on the other hand, dealt with roadblocks that many of the top backs don't have, but I guess you aren't interested in taking a well-rounded view. You only want to consider his advantage, volume, while ignoring all the things beyond his control that have limited his production as a pro.

2. As I already mentioned, if you want to take an opinion that most coaches wouldn't agree with, by all means, do so.

3. Yes. The information you presented is misleading. That doesn't mean you did so intentionally. I'm playing nice and giving you the benefit of the doubt there. The Steelers are doing business very differently under Khan than they did with Colbert as GM. I assume all Steelers fans know that. Also, GMs do tend to be a little more reluctant to let a guy they drafted go. Edmunds was Colbert's guy. Harris is not Khan's. Add in the fact that safeties last a lot longer than running backs and your comparison does not hold up at all. It is misleading, whether you meant it that way or not.

4. I'm not twisting anything. I'm pointing out an inconsistency.

5. That sounded like a jab. (Cue innocent routine.) Interesting.

 

You keep trying to find a way to present information in a way that you can dismiss the best games of Harris's career to fit your narrative, Mr. Pot. Regarding the last part of your post, I will leave the disrespect of others to you. I'm trying to stay away from ad hominem arguments these days.

 

1. Why are there allowed to be factors that limit Harris and not one that limits Edmunds? Maybe they both have had limited production because they are both simply limited players...

2. Most coaches don't think that ball security is the #1 thing they look for in a RB. Its a determining factor among similarly caliber players, but simply not fumbling isn't enough to be a good back.

3. I guess talking to a wall here... Khan was a part of picking Edmunds just like he was a part of picking Harris. He has been a part of our organization since 2001. He is just as invested in Harris as he was in Edmunds, as he had the same input in drafting them both. To say that Harris isn't Khans guy is misleading. He was a part of drafting both players.

4. You did.

5. How perceptive. Saying that you are intentionally misinterpreting my words to attack them isn't playing an "innocent" card. It is just a statement of fact as to what is happening.

 

I'm not. Calling them unlikely and anomalous doesn't mean that I am dismissing them. It is hard to dismiss Harris' best games. None of them are all that good, and there are so few of them that they are all very memorable.

The last part is just receiving the same energy you give to others. You take every opportunity you get to insult and disrespect others, yet the second that someone takes a negative attitude towards the type of human being you are you get thin-skinned and sad about it? Bad look. The last 12 posts you've made in our back and forth have all been ad hominem attacks... Ad hominem is all you got, sometimes others just have to meet you on common ground.

 

1. Edmunds was limited by the same factors as everyone playing his position. Harris was limited by factors particular to the Steelers. I explained the difference. You chose to ignore it.

2. Most coaches won't play a back who struggles to secure the ball.

3. No, you are talking to someone who sees through the nonsense. The Steelers are doing things very differently under Khan than they were under Colbert. I'm sure you know that. Why won't you acknowledge it? Khan wasn't even in scouting anymore when Harris was taken. He was their cap expert. I believe he was in that role when they took Edmunds, too. Sure, he had input, but he wasn't the face of those decisions. Not giving them a fifth-year option doesn't reflect poorly on him the way it would have on Colbert. I see you are staying away from the other factor that makes your comparison fail, the positions of the players. Safeties last a lot longer. I guess you will just ignore arguments you can't counter.

You claim that picking up the option for Edmunds and not for Harris is somehow relevant. Given all the other variables that affected those decisions, it isn't nearly as relevant as you would like it to be. I would argue that it isn't relevant at all.

4. No, I didn't twist your words. Please stop misrepresenting my actions. Thank you.

5. I did no such thing. Please see No. 4. Thank you again.

 

I am not insulting you or disrespecting you. I have not used ad hominem attacks. Pointing out that 3.nothing was misleading is not an ad hominem attack. It implies a number closer to three than to four, which does not accurately reflect what Harris has done. I'm not addressing your intent at all. I'm addressing the argument. I am attempting to treat people more respectfully. You are not. Please do not blame me for how you choose to post. Thank you.

 

As he gets healthier, he will be seeing more carries

 

That is also my assumption. Hopefully, the line improves so they can have more success as a team running the ball, which will create more opportunities for both Harris and Warren. Also, I hope they don't cost them carries by trying to work in Patterson, too.

 

So wrong it’s hilarious

Harris 4135 YScm

Conner 3414 YScm

And toss in Harris splitting with Warren