Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why we don't actually follow the Steeler model


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#21 top dawg

top dawg

    The Creative Cat

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,334
  • Reputation: 2,940
  • LocationWITHIN MY MIND'S EYE
HUDDLER

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:29 PM

What kind of cap hit are they taking for cutting Harrison?

Who, by the way, hasn't been very effective the last couple of seasons.

Funny that part was left out.


The Steelers coaches still wanted him bad and don't believe his effectiveness will be an issue this coming season. He was injured last season, but still led his team in sacks (6). If you think about it, he came back too early (the first five games), but once he returned for the last seven, he registered five more sacks, ending the season with two forced fumbles and 70 tackles.

Having nine sacks in 2011 is being ineffective? Hmmmm


Even in 2012, he wasn't a slouch considering his injury.

#22 csx

csx

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 31-December 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,751
  • Reputation: 2,221
HUDDLER

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:31 PM

I honestly don't think it would be a terrible idea to have a policy of not resigning any RB's. Make sure you can scout them, bring them in for 4 years, let them go. If needed bolster with a low level FA from time to time. Keep that money for your OL as they are the ones who actually dictate the running game.

#23 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,138
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:33 PM

I think that we'd take a bigger hit cutting D Will now...


As a June 1 he creates 3.1 million in room we could use in 2013. He creates more room in a bad 2014 scenario as well.

I'd be happy to keep him. He just needs to take a paycut

#24 jtnc

jtnc

    Resident Asshole

  • Joined: 28-November 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,637
  • Reputation: 3,571
HUDDLER

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:35 PM

Honestly, we don't follow ANY winning franchise's model...look at the Pats, Packers, Steelers, they don't hold on to dead weight.

#25 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,138
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:37 PM

Honestly, we don't follow ANY winning franchise's model...look at the Pats, Packers, Steelers, they don't hold on to dead weight.


Also, look at how much those are spending on runners (and that is without a bonus runner as QB).

They spend chump change there. Rest of the roster is more important

#26 PantherPhann89

PantherPhann89

    CPP "Carolina Panther Phann"

  • Joined: 25-June 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,483
  • Reputation: 409
  • LocationSC
HUDDLER

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:37 PM

I agree that he needs to take a paycut but I believe that right now, he's our best option a RB. Yes Stew is a beast but an injury prone beast. A paycut is in demand, if not...then we should cut him, if the numbers are favorable to us.

#27 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,138
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:43 PM

I agree that he needs to take a paycut but I believe that right now, he's our best option at). Yes Stew is a beast but an injury prone beast. A paycut is in demand, if not...then we should cut him, if the numbers are favorable to us.


Totally agree

#28 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • posts: 18,654
  • Reputation: 6,637
  • LocationNC
SUPPORTER

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:45 PM

Yeah, the fact he is now 30.....hasnt logged 1000 yards in YEARS is all irrelevant. Nothing factual at suggesting having him being one of the highest paid runners in the NFL on a team loaded with runners is a bad investment.


He's 29 NOW.

He hasn't hit the 1k benchmark since we got a franchise RB who can also run the ball. Trying to pin that on just Williams is moronic, at best.

The year before the running game was the sole focus of defenses. They knew Clausen wasn't going to beat them. However, after those "down" seasons he still has a career YPC of 4.9

By the same line of "reasoning" we should cut Stewart since he's only eclipsed 1k yards once in four years, has a lower YPC AND more fumbles despite less carries. On paper the only advantage he provides is youth, though you could argue that on running style.

#29 jtnc

jtnc

    Resident Asshole

  • Joined: 28-November 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,637
  • Reputation: 3,571
HUDDLER

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:47 PM

Also, look at how much those are spending on runners (and that is without a bonus runner as QB).

They spend chump change there. Rest of the roster is more important

Exactly. A good o-line would make ANY RB look like a star, RB's are a dime a dozen. Offensive line should be our main focus in FA.

#30 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,138
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:51 PM

He's 29 NOW.

He hasn't hit the 1k benchmark since we got a franchise RB who can also run the ball. Trying to pin that on just Williams is moronic, at best.

The year before the running game was the sole focus of defenses. They knew Clausen wasn't going to beat them. However, after those "down" seasons he still has a career YPC of 4.9

By the same line of "reasoning" we should cut Stewart since he's only eclipsed 1k yards once in four years, has a lower YPC AND more fumbles despite less carries. On paper the only advantage he provides is youth, though you could argue that on running style.


Who cares....we are talking about the 2013 season and football. He turns 30 in a month. That makes him a 30 yr old RB going forward.

Not pinning Cam on him....that is just one is the reasons he is even more luxury than ever before. Situation matters....and dictates how valuable he is to us. Our situation dictates he is a drastically overpaid roleplayer....


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users