Vet minimum, 1 year contracts and depth

There are a lot of posts where members suggest we sign older players to vet minimum contracts, 1 year contracts, and as we loose players there are concerns with depth. All valid concerns on the surface but not necessarily practical. We have to live with cap and roster limits.

Signing an older player (Holmes, Harrison) at vet minimum for 1 year is a short term thought to what is a long term problem. It still eats cap space, even if only $1MM each which could be applied to someone who we need to extend, and it takes a roster spot from a young guy with upside potential. Keeping older players for one more year is exactly what got us to 8-8.

Depth. Having bodies is not the same as depth. Depth is having bodies which can step in when needed and play well. Again, keeping someone who has underachieved (Hood, Woodley) for depth in lieu of a guy with upside is a bad long term move. Between Hood and Woodley they will be paid $10MM this season. I think we can find equal or better production for that amount. Besides, depth quality guys become available as traing camp progresses. Would you rather spend that $10MM on Hood and Woodley, or would you rather extend Ben? Seems like an easy decision to me.

Does Colbert have a plan? So far, his plan does not include wanting to over pay for underachievers and not wasting roster spots on old situational players. Seems like atleast half of a good plan.

 

I agree I don't want those 1 year rentals on players who are old. It's time to get younger on defense.

 

I agree for the most part, but you have to fill these spots on the roster and the Steelers aren't going to do it with UDFA's. have to find a happy medium and I believe that's what the Steelers have always been good at.

 

I agree for the most part but Harrison is the wrong example because we have no depth at the position. We don't have that guy on our current roster the one who is young and has upside. So to me it's a no brainer,sign Harrison for a year at vet. min. ,cut Carter and draft one or two OLBs for the future.

 

is it the coaching staff that are more comfortable with bringing back these type guys? if we would have brought in a guy for curtis brown last year, or sly the year before or last year, or carter, or dwyer and redman from the year before, DVD, when they were non effective, only to bring them back the next year too. moves like this make me crazy.

 

I disagree, which is the fun thing about this message board. We can do this and have different views.

Harrison is a perfect example of using a roster spot on an old fart and loosing the potential of a young guy with up side. Harrison did not play well his last year here or last year at Cinci. His input to this team will be minimal. He himself wasn't impressive for several years when young and was cut several times. Someone saw potential. He turned out well. No we don't have this young guy on the roster now. And if we sign Harrison we can't even look for that young guy. The roster spot is taken. If we don't sign Harrison, we can fill that spot between now and opening day. The young guy with upside may still be undrafted or still floundering on someone else's roster.

 

I hear what you're saying but let's stop using Cincy as a example of his downfall. New team,new scheme,new position. If my memory is correct James was coming off a back injury and really came on strong towards the end of his last year with us. I'm not looking for him to take the roster spot of of a potential un drafted player. I'm looking to upgrade what we already have at OLB,which isn't much. All things being equal financially of course Harrison>Carter. That's all I'm saying.....