GunnerBill Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 10 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said: They'll be face palming if they think Rudolph is the future. And there you go.... it comes down not to the strategy but to whether you like Mason Rudolph or not. The people who think Rudolph sucks as a prospect all think this was a silly pick. That isn't about the Steelers' strategy or how long Big Ben might or might not play, or whether he has a right to complain. This is a Mason Rudolph thread by another name. The people who don't like Rudolph think that invalidates the strategy.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 2 hours ago, GunnerBill said: And there you go.... it comes down not to the strategy but to whether you like Mason Rudolph or not. The people who think Rudolph sucks as a prospect all think this was a silly pick. That isn't about the Steelers' strategy or how long Big Ben might or might not play, or whether he has a right to complain. This is a Mason Rudolph thread by another name. The people who don't like Rudolph think that invalidates the strategy. It's a question of immediate benefit vs. long-term benefit to the team which was BR's point.
SouthNYfan Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 13 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: Shakier isn't why they weren't in the SB. Ben talks about retiring annually now. Maybe Rudolph won't help, but the point of this discussions that here is/was no other 3rd round pick that would... Their defense took a few games to gel last year, then was in a great stretch and looked to have it figured out, in a 5-0 run, then Shazier went down, and they plummeted to league worst against the run and I think league worst overall for the remaining games, including the playoffs. They were a SB contender with him, and had no chance without him. On the Rudolph side, I agree with you, since there was no LB available there that would have replaced Shazier, so they went with a guy who at worst looks to be a solid backup, and might be an average starter after Ben, for little to no risk/cost. Was he a first round talent, sure thing to be Ben's heir? No way. Was he good enough to take in the third and hope he develops? Yes. Good pick where they got him. 1 1
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 9 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Their defense took a few games to gel last year, then was in a great stretch and looked to have it figured out, in a 5-0 run, then Shazier went down, and they plummeted to league worst against the run and I think league worst overall for the remaining games, including the playoffs. They were a SB contender with him, and had no chance without him. On the Rudolph side, I agree with you, since there was no LB available there that would have replaced Shazier, so they went with a guy who at worst looks to be a solid backup, and might be an average starter after Ben, for little to no risk/cost. Was he a first round talent, sure thing to be Ben's heir? No way. Was he good enough to take in the third and hope he develops? Yes. Good pick where they got him. For values of "no chance" involving a 3-1 record to close out the season and a 3 pt loss in the playoffs. I take your point that Shazier was the shining star of the Pitts defense and a difference maker on the order of Von Miller or Kuechly, but to say the Pitts D had no chance without him is I think, a bit exaggeration. I agree completely on the Rudolph pick. They could have gotten a player who might develop as good depth, but since several teams had Rudolph as a late 1st-2nd round pick, he represented low risk/high reward potential for them there. 31 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: It's a question of immediate benefit vs. long-term benefit to the team which was BR's point. I thought that point had been well addressed. Rudolph has the potential to win the backup QB spot. The backup QB can be an immediate benefit to the team on any play. If someone personally doesn't like Rudolph and doesn't think that, that's OK - but recognize that some good football minds disagree. Yes, they could have gotten a guy who could contribute on ST, maybe push for a starting spot on D in the 3rd, but it's far from a sure thing that any 3rd round pick will provide an "immediate benefit".
Mr. WEO Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 34 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: It's a question of immediate benefit vs. long-term benefit to the team which was BR's point. There is no question....no 3rd rounder available would have had "SB" potential for the Steelers. Why even argue otherwise? Go watch the Giants become the Cowboys for a year with their new RB and no playoffs.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: For values of "no chance" involving a 3-1 record to close out the season and a 3 pt loss in the playoffs. I take your point that Shazier was the shining star of the Pitts defense and a difference maker on the order of Von Miller or Kuechly, but to say the Pitts D had no chance without him is I think, a bit exaggeration. I agree completely on the Rudolph pick. They could have gotten a player who might develop as good depth, but since several teams had Rudolph as a late 1st-2nd round pick, he represented low risk/high reward potential for them there. I thought that point had been well addressed. Rudolph has the potential to win the backup QB spot. The backup QB can be an immediate benefit to the team on any play. If someone personally doesn't like Rudolph and doesn't think that, that's OK - but recognize that some good football minds disagree. Yes, they could have gotten a guy who could contribute on ST, maybe push for a starting spot on D in the 3rd, but it's far from a sure thing that any 3rd round pick will provide an "immediate benefit". To the contrary, I think most teams have an expectation that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks will be immediate contributors that get significant snaps. Given the offense, Rudolph came from and the things he has to work on his ability to beat out Jones as the backup is questionable. We'll see.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 16 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: To the contrary, I think most teams have an expectation that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks will be immediate contributors that get significant snaps. Given the offense, Rudolph came from and the things he has to work on his ability to beat out Jones as the backup is questionable. We'll see. Well, we disagree. Given that past the top handful of picks, something like 2/3 of draftees do not become NFL starters, that would kind of be a foolish expectation for most teams to have. Goal, hope sure. Expectation, no. A quick look shows it's probably not factually true that 3rd round picks become immediate contributors that get significant snaps. For example, last year, there were 43 3rd round picks. Of them, only 10 started 8 or more games. About half logged a stat, like 3 catches for 31 yards, 32 carries for 144 yds, 1 INT or the like. Most of them were active on gameday for significant games, but usually on the field in a backup/special package or ST role. Statistically overall, for every Kareem Hunt or Cooper Kupp, there are 2 Donta Foreman, James Conners, and Amara Darbohs.
SouthNYfan Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 37 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: For values of "no chance" involving a 3-1 record to close out the season and a 3 pt loss in the playoffs. I take your point that Shazier was the shining star of the Pitts defense and a difference maker on the order of Von Miller or Kuechly, but to say the Pitts D had no chance without him is I think, a bit exaggeration. I agree completely on the Rudolph pick. They could have gotten a player who might develop as good depth, but since several teams had Rudolph as a late 1st-2nd round pick, he represented low risk/high reward potential for them there. I thought that point had been well addressed. Rudolph has the potential to win the backup QB spot. The backup QB can be an immediate benefit to the team on any play. If someone personally doesn't like Rudolph and doesn't think that, that's OK - but recognize that some good football minds disagree. Yes, they could have gotten a guy who could contribute on ST, maybe push for a starting spot on D in the 3rd, but it's far from a sure thing that any 3rd round pick will provide an "immediate benefit". Their 3-1 record was against Ravens, Texans, browns (with the loss against ne) Really 3-2 including playoffs over their last 5 The final 4 they gave up about 1600 total of their yearly 4900, or about 33% in 4 games Their passing defense gave up 450+ to flacco and Bortles if you include the playoffs. They had to stack the box without Shazier to stop the run I took this from a Steelers analytics site also: " After that shaky start to the 2017 season, the Steelers run defense did show signs of improvement in their next five games. During that 5-0 run the Steelers defense allowed just 2.75 yards per carry and a successful run rate of 33.3%, both of which are fantastic numbers. At that point there was hope that that unit had solved their run game woes. Shazier, as most of you remember, was injured early in the Steelers Week 13 game. From that point forward, the Steelers run defense fell apart. Including that game against the Bengals and through their playoff loss to the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Steelers run defense allowed 4.89 yards per carry and a horrible successful run rate of 50.4%. While the defense only gave up two runs of 20 yards or more in those 6 games, they did allow 16 runs of 10 yards or more. Shazier not being on the field for those six games was certainly noticeably in more ways than one and especially against the run and certainly in the playoff loss to the Jaguars." Their defense wasn't good enough once he went down. You're right, they still had a chance, I was exaggerating, but they definitely weren't a 13-3 team without him, and were definitely not a favorite after him going down.
JohnC Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 57 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: It's a question of immediate benefit vs. long-term benefit to the team which was BR's point. So the Steelers drafted a qb in the third round who might not immediately help but might do so in the not too distant future? Why is that such a bad approach to take? Quite the contrary, it's a smart thing to do. If the Bills took a similar approach just maybe they wouldn't have gone nearly a quarter century without having a franchise qb. If you don't like the qb then for you it is a bad pick regardless where he was taken. But that's not how the Steelers judged the pick. In their eyes they selected a qb they liked at a draft spot that was lower than how they evaluated him. For them it was a bargain and smart pick. If you don't believe that a third round qb can become a franchise qb then ask Seattle if they thought picking Russell Wilson in the third round was a mistake even when they had a backlog of qbs on the roster? If Rudolph turns out to be better than the other backups then that in itself would make it a good/reasonable pick.
LabattBlue Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 Who gives a flying f*** what Ben thinks. Players play, coaches coach, and GM's build the team through F/A and the draft. Maybe he should retire and become an NFL GM? He gets a big STFU from me. 1
CommonCents Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: Shakier isn't why they weren't in the SB. Ben talks about retiring annually now. Maybe Rudolph won't help, but the point of this discussions that here is/was no other 3rd round pick that would... Some say the Garroppolo selection motivated Brady and led to another SB. FWIW Edited May 14, 2018 by Commonsense
26CornerBlitz Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 19 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Well, we disagree. Given that past the top handful of picks, something like 2/3 of draftees do not become NFL starters, that would kind of be a foolish expectation for most teams to have. Goal, hope sure. Expectation, no. A quick look shows it's probably not factually true that 3rd round picks become immediate contributors that get significant snaps. For example, last year, there were 43 3rd round picks. Of them, only 10 started 8 or more games. About half logged a stat, like 3 catches for 31 yards, 32 carries for 144 yds, 1 INT or the like. Most of them were active on gameday for significant games, but usually on the field in a backup/special package or ST role. Statistically overall, for every Kareem Hunt or Cooper Kupp, there are 2 Donta Foreman, James Conners, and Amara Darbohs. Who said anything about 2/3 of drafted players? I referred to the 1st three rounds with many making significant contributions last season as I intimated: https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-ranking-the-nfl-leaders-in-rookie-snap-counts
section122 Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 10 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Not buying what you're selling. If the Steelers really thought that highly of Rudolph, they wouldn't have taken Edmunds and Washington in the 1st two rounds with so many teams having veretan QBs nearing the end of their careers. I understand Big Ben's POV even if you don't. I understand Ben's pov. He's thinking about Ben Roethlisberger and what is best for him, the Steelers are thinking about the Steelers and what is best for them. That is it. Further you say they should have taken him earlier than they got him which is a strange argument. Why would they take him earlier? Every pick is need vs bpa for every team. When the players are closely ranked you take the need. When they aren't closely ranked you take bpa. Rudolph didn't hold the value in those picks that he did in the 3rd for the Steelers.
26CornerBlitz Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 1 minute ago, section122 said: I understand Ben's pov. He's thinking about Ben Roethlisberger and what is best for him, the Steelers are thinking about the Steelers and what is best for them. That is it. Further you say they should have taken him earlier than they got him which is a strange argument. Why would they take him earlier? Every pick is need vs bpa for every team. When the players are closely ranked you take the need. When they aren't closely ranked you take bpa. Rudolph didn't hold the value in those picks that he did in the 3rd for the Steelers. That's not what I said at all. Try again.
section122 Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 19 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: That's not what I said at all. Try again. 15 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said: A rather weak retort from you that doesn't refute the point of how big of an immediate contribution a 3rd round pick can make. how your entire point is based around your dislike of Rudolph. Clearly I don't understand your point please clarify then.
SouthNYfan Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 48 minutes ago, Commonsense said: Some say the Garroppolo selection motivated Brady and led to another SB. FWIW Who said that? It's hogwash. Brady has never needed motivation to win.
CommonCents Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 9 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Who said that? It's hogwash. Brady has never needed motivation to win. Lots of people believe that it motivated Brady. Of course Brady wouldn’t admit that but the numbers don’t lie. Before JG was drafted Brady’s passer rating has slipped to 17th, after that he won two SBs and put up some insane numbers like 120 TD to 20 INT. IIRC.
row_33 Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 On 5/4/2018 at 9:27 PM, BillsFanM.D. said: Complete lack of self awareness. biggest story since he mocked an opponent and patted him on the helmet.
Chicken Boo Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 Ben needs to STFU and thank his lucky stars that he has yet to be swept up in this #MeToo movement.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 14, 2018 Posted May 14, 2018 1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Who said anything about 2/3 of drafted players? I referred to the 1st three rounds with many making significant contributions last season as I intimated: https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-ranking-the-nfl-leaders-in-rookie-snap-counts I did, in addressing your point. You said " most teams have an expectation that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks will be immediate contributors that get significant snaps" Given the "bust rate" of players past the top of the 1st round and the fact that 75% of the 3rd round picks last year did not get significant starts, I pointed out that perhaps "most teams" do not have that "expectation". Hope, yes. Expectation, no. Since we're specifically discussing Ben Roeth's comments about a 3rd round pick and what's reasonable to expect there, bringing in Rounds 1 and 2 and an article about overall rookie snap counts does not seem particularly relevant.
Recommended Posts