Mickey

Yeah, the Steve Christies of the world don't grow on trees. He was a heckuva a security blanket in his day. You just never had any doubt that he would make the tough kick and nail anything under 50. Automatic=Steve Christie. Some don't realize how good we had it with that guy.

I agree that this group will be better than last year's but rather than depth, I think the most important question is whether or not they are good enough. Being better than last year would not be much of an accomplishment. We simply can't have pressure on the QB coming from the interior of the line, edge pressure now and then we can deal with. Pressure up the middle however is a disaster. It leave the QB in a position where he can't step up to avoid the outside rush and it inhibits his vision. Edge pressure takes longer to get to the QB and when he steps up, the tackles can push the ends deep past the pocket. Edge pressure will still give the QB some time to make a play. When that pressure comes up the middle however, it is there faster and in the QB's face. If this group can do that, at least sow up the middle from guard to guard on pass plays, our QB's should have an extra second or so as compared to last year to find an open man. I really have no idea if Fowler will be better than Teague but I can't imagine anyone being worse than Anderson and certainly, Peters is better than MW. He has the potential to be the best lineman on the team but for now that is still largely potential rather than actual. We'll see. Color me cautiously optimistic.

He had a good enough year last year for us not to put too much emphasis on replacing him. At the same time, a good GM is always looking to improve the roster whenever he can. If a good prospect at PK were available, we should give him a look-see. Lindell is not good enough, like Christie was, to pretty much ignore the idea of an upgrade. All he was last year was good enough to keep his job and not much more than that. Look at it this way, if we needed a 45 yarder on the last play of the game on a windy day in November, how confident would you be that Rian would nail it? An upgrade would be nice but not a priority.

Okay, I stepped in it on that one, meant to say that I am not sure he is "that" good, as opposed to "any" good. Even so, you have to admit he had a lousy year. I won't tag him as "overrated" just yet but this is a pivotal year for him. Either he will show that last year was an aberration or that he really isn't any.....er...that good. Jeez, I did it again.

You only have 10 players listed on defense. I don't agree on Seymour, I'd trade Schobel for him in a heartbeat. Crowel might not even start let alone be any better than whoever you compare him to on the other side. Also, Clements had an awful year last year, I am not sure if he is any good. McGee is a great return man but an average CB. There is a reason why our defense was so bad last year. Crowel, Vincent, McGee, Clements and Schobel were all members of that awful defense. They weren't the worst guys on that defense but they are not free of blame for their contributions to the among the worst defenses in the entire league last year. The Patsies weren't much better but they were better.

I think Lindell rescued his career last year. He played very well so we aren't going to see any change at PK unless and until that changes. As for Willis, I am tired of all this talk about character. As long as the guy doesn't have a drug problem or other problems with the law and obeys most of the team rules, the only thing I care about is performance on the field. Cookie Gilchrist was a nut case but he could play and I think he stayed out of jail for the most part. Lots of great players have been total jerks off the field. Let the boy scouts raise good citizens, these are grown men, professionals, measure them by the job they do, not whether they say "please" and "thank you".

First off, a caveat: any opinion on this topic is total speculative BS given the variables involved. For example, if we win that SB with Craig Nall finishing the year as MVP or with Losman as a superstar. That having been said, if done all in good fun, this kind of thing is good offseason entertainment for us. So please, don't get all upset over anything I write here, I know it is a BS opinion so there is no need to lambaste me for it. I wouldn't give TD any credit. I arrived at that based on starting with what I thought would be the best case scenario for an argument that he should be given credit. I think the draft pick that defined him as a GM for me was the McGahee pick. When he took JP, we needed a QB whether it be that year or the next so I think any GM would have been looking for a QB in the draft and given where we picked, I don't think it was particularly daring or inspired to take JP. When he took big Mike, now known as the "big bust", we were desperate for an OL and so he took one. If it hadn't have been Williams, it would have been McKinnie. I think almost any GM would have decided we needed an OT bad in that draft and would have found Williams to be just as promising as TD did. The Willis pick was gutsy, maybe even stupid depending on what one thought back then of his ability to rehab that awful injury. We had a decent RB and had other needs. Any other GM probably would have passed on Willis, maybe TD should have but that doesn't matter. I think because hardly any other GM would have taken that leap makes that pick the one that defines TD as a GM for me, it was his D-day pick. If we won the SB and did so with Willis having an MVP, Emmett Smith type of season, I think that would be the best case scenario for giving credit to TD but still, even in that case, I wouldn't. The reason is that Willis has shown us that he is a good back already but not one that can overcome a terrible line and an otherwise hapless offense. If Willis does have an MVP year, it will be due to an upgrade on the OL and the offense as a whole whether that be a bettery system, better play calling, better game planning, whatever. TD, even if he did get us a great back (jury still out on that one), he never was able to pair that move with a solid OL or with coaches able to construct a solid offense or, failing that, to come up with something to get offensive production despite its shortcomings talent-wise. Bad linemen and mediocre coaches. That was also part of TD's legacy. Overcoming them, if done by the new regime, will be what makes some TD's other picks worth their weight in gold, be it McGee or McGahee or Roscoe Parrish. Yep, I know, total bs but hey, I haven't got my playbook yet and I have missed all the OPA's (voluntary Organized Posting Activities) so give me a break.

Careful, you are running afoul of the "height is never, ever a factor in evaluating a WR" theory, thereby opening yourself to heaps of scorn. Only idiots like you, me, NFL coaches and NFL players are foolish enough to challenge that theory.

Was that just until Roscoe came back?

I am quoting NFL coaches, if that is what you call "parroting" then I'll take such parroting as a far better source of information than anything you have come up with. Lets see.....who has a better notion of the importance of size for a WR, you or NFL coaches? You or actual NFL receivers? Who should we believe you or the professionals? Why do I suspect you came up with "parroting" to refer to the citing of authoritative sources after getting an F on a reserch paper for not having cited, excuse me, "parroted" any sources? How is it that the idea that size can be of benefit to a receiver is "blown away" by the existence of successful shorter receivers? That would only be true if we were declaring absoultes but no one here is doing that but you. No one is saying that a tall receiver is always good or that a short one is always bad. No point has been made other than to say that height can be an advantage. The ony absolute being spewed that would be "blown away" through demonstrating an exception or two is your pathologically ridiculous assertion that height is never, ever, ever a quality worth considering. I have no problem at all with the notion that height alone does not a WR make and have said it many, many times in this thread and yet you keep pretending otherwise. Can you admit that occasionally, height can be an advantage to a WR?

Right, and no one, certainly not me, disagrees with that. What I disagree with is the notion that height is never, ever, ever a relevant factor in evaluating a receiver which is his point and all of us are idiots if we don't agree with him. I pointed out Nance's college stats, his height and his speed and the next thing I knew, LaDipwad was going on and on as if I had said height is all that matters.

Actually, it was 5 Wide whose comments LaDipwad was mangling this time around. At least I am not alone. Notice how he hasn't responded to all the "size is good" stuff I posted from coaches and players? Imagine how awful it would be for him to have say, "yeah, I guess being tall could be of benefit for some receivers"? Apparently it would just kill him given his resistance to admitting what is so screechingly obvious even my dog is wondering what his freaking problem is and Rufus hates football.

Well, you might be surprised that there is an alternative place where WR's can be found besides the NFL combine and Mars. Its called the NFL. Those are the receivers I was talking about which include at least 5 or 6 per team not including the practice squad which amounts to about 160-190 WR's as opposed to just the 40 you included that were at one combine. Here is a homework question for you to dodge: Which sample size will provide a more accurate result showing the average size of an NFL WR, the 160-190 actually in the league or the top 40 college recruits invited to one combine? Use a number two pencil.

You need to buy a thesaurus. Please quote a post of mine where I ever said that short receivers can't be good receivers.

Good point but see the article I linked about recruiting basketball players and the increased passing going on in HS and college for an additional view point.

WR Maurice Stovall, Notre Dame drafted in the 3rd round by Tampa: Part of the reason for his effectiveness as a blocker, Stovall said, is his size, but he said there was a bigger reason. “I was always coached to be an aggressive wide receiver,” he said. “By that, I mean my releasing with defensive backs and also my blocking, making plays downfield and attacking the ball also.” Stovall said he didn’t start out as a big, physical receiver. He was 5-feet-10 as a sophomore at Philadelphia (Pa.) Archbishop High School, but after a growth spurt, he returned for his junior season at 6-3. Since then, he said, his size has been a “big advantage.” “Real big,” he said. “An average defensive back is about 5-10, 5-11 and me being 6-4 gives me a height advantage. Also, my wing span, my long arms, gives me an advantage also. It allows me to shield defenders from the ball and gives me an advantage.” But what does he know compared to Ladipwad? Size doesn't matter, not one bit, never, ever, ever says Ladipwad so it must true. Actual NFL WR says Size matter, Ladipwad swallows his crayons ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mel Kiper, a goof, sure but a goof who makes a living at this crap as opposed to Ladipwad who doesn't: Players such as Michigan State's Charles Rogers, Texas' Roy Williams, Miami's Andre Johnson, Washington's Reggie Williams and Oklahoma State's Rashaun Woods -- as well as freshmen phenoms such as USC's Mike Williams and Pittsburgh's Larry Fitzgerald -- have all taken over games, proving to be the primary difference-makers in a number of contests this season. What allows for mismatches against the cornerbacks they work against is a combination of athleticism and size. Of this group of wideouts, the average height is 6-3¼ and the average weight is 211 pounds. Zillionaire draft guru says Ladipwad really is a dip ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, the average WR height in 2004 was 6-1/2 inch while the average height at the combine was 6-1 1/8 thus making my point that 6-1 is tall for a receiver and that the WR's invited to the combine would be expected to be taller than the average WR. At an average of 6-1, that WR class was considered to be abnormally tall. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why are WR's getting taller? "The trend, according to several coaches, can be traced to wide receiver's growth into a marquee position and an increase in passing at the high school and college levels, where coaches often recruit average basketball players to become exceptional receivers. "It used to be a handful of big receivers -- Herman Moore and Randy Moss and Michael Irvin and that bunch, Terrell Owens," Lions coach Steve Mariucci said. "Now there's going to be one on every team." NFL Coaches disagree with Ladipwad, film at 11 Thats from NFL coaches, not Ladipwad so I guess we should reject it because, hell, what do they know compared to the Ladipwad, Origin of Wisdom who has decreed that size doesn't matter for receivers. All those coaches recruiting basket ball players for their height just don't know what he knows. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other NFL coaches on tall receivers: "Almost everyone seems to be moving in that direction [taller] at corner," Oilers coach Jeff Fisher says. "We're doing that ourselves, for sure. One scouting service report has six of the top 12 receivers in the NFL being in our division, and every one of those receivers is six feet or taller." "...Panthers coach Dom Capers, after watching too many wideouts pluck balls off the top of his cornerbacks' helmets the last three seasons, raided Green Bay for Doug Evans in the offseason.... "They would throw jump balls, over and over. And in a one-on-one game, the shortest player is hardly ever going to jump the highest. Coaches and players toss around basketball analogies all the time when they talk about wide receivers vs. cornerbacks." ""We make sure our wide receivers have good size," says Shanahan, who starts McCaffrey and Rod Smith (6-0, 195) in Denver. "That helps as much as anything." Capers, Shanahan and Fisher disagree with Ladipwad, world shocked None of that matters. Ladipwad says size doesn't matter and all who disagree, me, Shanahan, Fisher, Capers, players, coaches, draft gurus, we are all, all total idiots for thinking that size can, in fact, matter.

There are no short guys to draft? They are ony drafting the taller ones? hmmm...why would that be?

Please point out where I opined that 6-1 was tall for the 40 top college receivers invited to the NFL combine as opposed to 6-1 being tall for WR's period. Perhaps they don't cover statistics and the importance of sample sizes in 5th grade? For bonus points, explain how an article demonstrating the increasing size of the most highly regarded college receivers, the ones invited to the combine, supports your point that height is never, ever, ever a factor in evaluating a WR?

Why are WR's getting bigger in the NFL?

So it's okay to insult rotting squirrel carcasses with such a comparison?

I could name you a couple hundred or so other guys that the Steelers didn't draft, I guess they all must suck under this "Steelers didn't draft him" theory of yours.

Unable to address the positions I have taken, now you are just making them up. My position: Height is a factor, not the only one, but certainly a factor. Your "interpretation" of my position: Mickey thinks size is the only factor. Your position: Height is never a factor, it is totally worthless and anyone who thinks so is an idiot. You are the only one here taking an extreme, absolute position, that height never matters. My question to to you: Is size a factor in making Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald as dangerous as they are? Your Answer: Santana Moss is good and short. And as for what passes for a "tall" receiver, you only looked at average height for the WR's invited to the combine. These are the best of the best hence I would expect, since height is a factor in helping WR's to succeed, to be taller than the average WR's out there. Do you have stats for the average WR size in all of Division 1 football? That would be the appropriate number to determine what the average size of a receiver is in college. The same for the pros. If I had said that 6-1 was tall for the WR's at the combine this year, I would have been wrong, but I didn't. Nice job disproving a position I didn't take. By the way, did you actually read the article you linked? Here is what it said: "Due to the increasing number of tall receivers in the NFL, height has become an important factor in drafting cornerbacks. Of the 40 receivers at this year's Scouting Combine, the average height was 6-foot-1 1/8 and the average weight was 205 pounds. Thirteen receivers were 6-2 or taller." You do realize that the article you linked stands in complete opposition to the ridiculous point you don't have the guts to abandon, that height doesn't matter for WR's, don't you? Why do you think those WR's are getting taller? Could there possibly be a connection between performance at the position and height? Could NFL GM's increasingly be looking for tall WR's even though you, as the master of all football intellect, have deemed height to not matter at all? Thanks for finding that article for me as it demonstrates exactly the point that I was trying to make all along, that height can be a factor albeit not the only one in separating the good WR's from the bad.

On average. The only point here is that height is a factor. Not the only factor. Ask Pete Metzalars if his height was a factor in his success. At the same time, Duper and Clayton did okay without it. All else being equal, who would you take, a 5-10 WR or a 6-2 WR? Remember, all other factors are totally equal.

Average height of bottom 25 WR's from 2005: 5-11 Of the top 25? 6' Is height the only factor? Of course not. Is it a factor? Certainly.

Agreed, however, I would add that it is not an impossibility that Parrish, Reed or Price could get beat out of a job by Nance, Wilson, Aiken or Smith and if that happened, Nance or whoever would be a 3rd or 4th WR and woud be on the roster even if they can't play special teams. Wilson, Aiken and Smith have had opportunities aplenty to crack the 3rd or 4th WR position and haven't. Nance? We just don't know. Long shot? Absolutely but not impossible. For all we know, Nance may be more in competition for Price and Reed's job than Aiken's. That is why early on I compared some numbers for Price, Reed and Nance and didn't include Aiken. During the Tasker years, we saw a lot of movement on and off the roster at the #3 and #4 WR spot but none of it effected Tasker's roster spot. Maybe that is the deal with Aiken. I don't think he is Tasker material but maybe the Bills do.