with the 24th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the Pittsburgh Ste

Re: with the 24th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the Pittsburgh

You bring this up all the time. I always take it as a joke because you can't be serious. I get that it's a pattern, but you don't really think it decides who they get, do you? Do you think they'll reach for a player that's 4th on their overall board, even if the other three are decidedly better in their eyes and are players of positional need on defense, just because it's the offense's turn?

Let's look at our 2nd round. I see a steady pattern of defense, offense, none, defense, offense, none...

2007 - DEFENSE Woodley
2008 - OFFENSE Sweed
2009 - NONE
2010 - DEFENSE Worilds
2011 - OFFENSE Gilbert
2012 - I guess we won't have one! I wonder if we'll trade up or trade down.

I'm not saying they won't pick an offensive player. To me our biggest need is on offense, and so I'm hoping that's where we go. The FO is also aware of our OL problems and will definitely be looking there. But this team always goes BPA, and we do have other needs.

 

Re: with the 24th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the Pittsburgh

really, i do. it keeps balance on your team to start with. actually our biggest need would be a NT, if you want to actually look at it. we lost two and have a DE as our only one left. mclendon came here as a DE. we also need ilb'ers. hell, best player available may be a qb. should we take him? at least by your thinking we would. if a defensive player was the best player available every year we picked, we would have one heck of alot of defensive players. if we are picking at 24, there better be 23 players on their list better then the guy they pick or we need some better scouts.

 

Re: with the 24th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the Pittsburgh

actually our biggest need would be a NT, if you want to actually look at it. we lost two and have a DE as our only one left. mclendon came here as a DE. we also need ilb'ers.[/quote:37klast1]
McLendon has been a nose tackle for years and is pretty good at it, regardless of what he was when he first arrived. I don't yet know if he can be a real starter and I don't disagree that NT is a need. But he's a NT.

Okay, I will clarify: BPA at a position of need. That does not include WR, which might be our deepest position on the whole team, just because it may or may not be so deep in a couple years depending on how things shake out.

Ah, I agree. We should base our scouting on the 23 teams that performed worse than us last year, and we should never aim to get good value. What I meant was of the players available.

I'm hoping we do go offense, I just can't quite understand that you think the team would rather eeney-meeney-miney-moe than take the player they feel is the best at football and the best for the team. This year I expect you to be right about us going offense, but I can't help thinking, what if it didn't work out so perfectly? The example that comes to mind is Maurkice Pouncey. In all my years since following the draft, he is the least surprising pick I've ever seen us make. It was a no-brainer. Generally speaking, fans wanted him, he was consistently mocked to us, he was expected to fall to us, it would have been a real surprise -- and bonehead move -- if we didn't take him. Most people on this very board can claim to have been on the Pouncey bandwagon since before he was drafted, but it's nothing to brag about since almost everybody was in on it! So... what if it had been the defense's year? We pass up on an All-Pro center that we desperately needed? It was the largest need, the best value (even at 18), and the safest pick. Win, win, win, win, win, and it was all predictable and predicted. But if all this had been a year sooner or later, you're telling me we would have passed on him and taken someone else? For a pattern? for some elementary sense of balance?

I'm sure you'll give me the name of a good defensive player taken some time after Pouncey, but what I really want to know is do you think the team seriously would have passed on him if they'd drafted an offensive player earlier in the year?

 

Re: with the 24th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the Pittsburgh

McLendon has been a nose tackle for years and is pretty good at it, regardless of what he was when he first arrived. I don't yet know if he can be a real starter and I don't disagree that NT is a need. But he's a NT.

Okay, I will clarify: BPA at a position of need. That does not include WR, which might be our deepest position on the whole team, just because it may or may not be so deep in a couple years depending on how things shake out.

Ah, I agree. We should base our scouting on the 23 teams that performed worse than us last year, and we should never aim to get good value. What I meant was of the players available.

I'm hoping we do go offense, I just can't quite understand that you think the team would rather eeney-meeney-miney-moe than take the player they feel is the best at football and the best for the team. This year I expect you to be right about us going offense, but I can't help thinking, what if it didn't work out so perfectly? The example that comes to mind is Maurkice Pouncey. In all my years since following the draft, he is the least surprising pick I've ever seen us make. It was a no-brainer. Generally speaking, fans wanted him, he was consistently mocked to us, he was expected to fall to us, it would have been a real surprise -- and bonehead move -- if we didn't take him. Most people on this very board can claim to have been on the Pouncey bandwagon since before he was drafted, but it's nothing to brag about since almost everybody was in on it! So... what if it had been the defense's year? We pass up on an All-Pro center that we desperately needed? It was the largest need, the best value (even at 18), and the safest pick. Win, win, win, win, win, and it was all predictable and predicted. But if all this had been a year sooner or later, you're telling me we would have passed on him and taken someone else? For a pattern? for some elementary sense of balance?

I'm sure you'll give me the name of a good defensive player taken some time after Pouncey, but what I really want to know is do you think the team seriously would have passed on him if they'd drafted an offensive player earlier in the year?[/quote:aror43ed]
let's just look at last year, it was the defenses turn and we picked cam heyward. we needed a guard last year. remember we spent all preseason trying to find who would play there. we also needed a LT, but we took a DE. we had starting DE's already in place. one a long time starter, one a first round pick ( ziggy) and aaron smith back from injury another pro bowl starting DE. did we really need cam? was he BPA at a position of need?

just because of pouncey and alot of people on this board wanted him doesn't mean your theory holds water. it was the offenses turn so we took him. eric wood was a possibility too that year and it wasen't cut and dry we would get pouncey. everyone kept saying how how wood wasen't a first rounder either, because i was pimping him that year, he turned out to be and by our O line coach now. they rank many guys, for offense and defense, anyone of them could be the pick, just because you or someone on this board thinks thats our biggest need, doesn't mean thats what the steelers want. they may see something they don't like about a guy and they have alot more information on these guys then we do. i'm saying i see what i see from this team and they alternate every year between offense and defense since MT has been here. it keeps the team balanced and it keeps first rounders split up for their second contract, thus keeping payroll from becoming to lopsided to either the defense or offense. plus we have a good defense and a good offense in tandum. which is a winning combo so far. every year there could be a guy on either O or D that could use upgraded, they keep that balanced so we are not picking 3 defensive players 3 years in a row and making our offense weak by not giving them their fair share.

you keep talking about this couple of years thing about our wr's. that's not true. one year and we are in trouble possibly. where these guys were picked, ( brown and sanders) have become stars and we don't sign these guys to more then 3 year contracts in those rounds. that will be next year. we will also have to sign wallace again if he gets his one year tender. ward will be done. battle will not be the guy. cotchery we don't know what he will do yet. it's not near as stable as you think. without cotchery in place last year and sanders only playing a handful games again, we could have been alot worse then we ended up being. heck, battle couldn't stay healthy just playing ST's. ward isn't going to give us the quality he used to, not even close.

 

Re: with the 24th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the Pittsburgh

You're the one that says Ziggy is going to nose tackle. If he is, then Heyward was indeed needed. You can't have it both ways.

I don't know who the hell Eric Hill is, but he has two of the same letters in his name as Kyle Wilson. Did you mean him? He is the only other fan favorite I can even think of, but I don't think he was in the Steelers' plans half as much as he was in ours. And if you think the only thing separating Pouncey and Wilson is that one plays O and one plays D, you're way off. Wilson was no sure thing at CB, and Pouncey was as close to a guarenteed home run as you could get. Maybe it wasn't 100% cut and dry that we'd get him if he was available since Bulaga fell, but I would say it was as cut and dry as any draft pick of ours that I've ever seen.

Also, does NOT alternating O and D every year automatically make one side of your team weak or weaker, as you say? We went offense 3 years in a row with Ben, Heath, and Santonio. I'd say they were all the correct pick, with the only possible exception being Holmes (who won us a Super Bowl), who could have been Mangold, another offensive player. Not only were those all the correct pick at positions of need, but how did our defense do in the years following? Oh I'm sure you can find a position where we could use help to prove your point, but did it really suffer? In 2008 we had one of the greatest defenses in NFL history. In the years surrounding it, we've still had one of the very best defenses in the league, no matter how you look at it. If anyone had to pick a side of our team that has suffered since the time following the 2004-2006 drafts, they would correctly pick offense.

EDIT: I see you meant Eric Wood. That was 2009, the year we got Ziggy. Wood was drafted before it was our turn, or else we might have picked him. I remember reading the team liked him, and he seemed like our kind of guy, but I think Buffalo got him 3 or 4 picks ahead of us. If he had been in the same draft as Pouncey, there would have been zero chance of us taking Wood.

 

Re: with the 24th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the Pittsburgh

i said since tomlin has been here. my mistake about wood. he was the year of alex mack. we needed a center badly that year. we took ziggy. last year we took cam heyward. both years it was defenses turn. you are the one talking about being golden and not picking a spot 2 years in advance. i said it may only be a year in advance if that. did we really need cam last year? we had DE's. no, but it was defenses turn. all i know is what i see and i see them alternating since tomlins been here. you spin it however you want.

 

Re: with the 24th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the Pittsburgh

I know you were talking about Tomlin's years. My point about Ben, Heath, and Santonio was that it was not "balanced" as you say, it was offense three years in a row. And they were all the correct pick, and they got us Super Bowl wins. Meanwhile, even though we neglected our defense out of a first rounder according to your balance theory, it still became one of the greatest of all time in 2008, and undeniably maintained its status as one of the best if not the best in the league over time since then. Point being, if you break the pattern, nothing will happen. You gotta pick who you gotta pick.

The year of Wood/Mack, we probably would have taken either of them if they'd become available to us, but both went too soon. Hood was not their first choice for that spot, I'm positive. The only other C option was Max Unger, but #32 was too high for him. I think he went like 15 or so spots later. This supports my theory that they take BPA at a position of need, and do not mind petty things like your statistic. We both know they would have taken Mack or Wood, had they been available. And the pattern, if you can call it that after two years, would have been destroyed. But both options were gone, and Hood was the next guy in line.

I wouldn't believe in this pattern even if it happened 10 years in a row. That squid at the world cup got something like 8 in a row correct. Doesn't mean I'd take drafting or gambling advice from him.

That said, you would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't been talking about it since 2009. At that point it had only been D-O-D. Hardly a pattern after only three years. And yet, you somehow knew we'd go offense the following year, and defense the year after that, then offense... How did you know that after only three years? I mean, if that is really quite a leap when you think about it. Teams will go D-O-D or O-D-O in a three year span all the time. Like, constantly. In fact, in ANY given three year span, there's a really really good chance that will happen. Something like one out of four. And yet you were dead certain that it was intentional and would continue, even back then. How'd you know? Actually, don't answer that. I'm a little scared that you were serious about this after all, and I've spent too much time thinking about it already. I'm gonna hop over to that "Will Ben force a trade" thread.