- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Not in my book....
Not in my book....
P
POP
Guest
I used to try to defend JJ. Not anymore. Is it possible he was decent against the rush last season? Possible, but his tackle stats don't really indicate it. Yes, you can play rush D and not make the tackle, but bottom line, if you are playing good OLB in Pgh, you will have sacks and tackles and he has very little of either.
Let's look at other SOLID OLB play and how those stats compare.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LloyGr00.htm
Greg Lloyd, year 1, .5 sacks, 33 tkls. 2nd yr, 7, 92. 3rd year, 4.5, 62. 4th yr, 8, 76.
Joey Porter, year 1, 2 sacks, year 2, 10.5 sacks, year 3, 59 tackles, 9 sacks. Year 4, 9 sacks, 88 tkls.
Lamarr Woodley, year 1, 14 tckls, 4 sacks. Year 2, 60 tckls, 11.5 sacks. Year 3, 62 tckls, 13.5 sacks.
We can all agree, all three above were very good OLBs, at least at one time or another. Now, how does JJ's #s compare?
J. Jones, year 1, 40 tckls, 1 sack. Year 2, 18, 2. Year 3, 29 tckls, 2 sacks.
Lloyd had several season near or over 100 tackles. You want to talk run defense, let's talk Lloyd. J Peezey no where near as good as a run defender as Lloyd, but he still put up 88 tckls in one year. JJ's best season was 40 tckls, as a rookie. Last year he posted a weak 29 tckls, so let's not proclaim him as a solid rush defender. I don't know if we can win a ring with our ROLB putting up such weak production. We need our ROLB to kill it. JJ kills nothing.
P
POP
Guest
I might not say, "far better" but I would say Starks was somewhat better. Worilds was not that much better than Jones - a little better, but no where near what we need from the ROLB position.
We need 9-14 sacks, and 80 tckls.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
When you compare production vs. starts, Worilds was vastly superior.
Before their tags Starks had 34 GS and accumulated 20 AV (1-9-7-3) and was declining in AV production. Worilds had only 21 GS and accumulated 16 AV (with his best year the year before).
By comparison Jarvis Jones has started 26 games and accumulated 14 AV or approximately 40% less than Worilds just to put Worilds contributions in context.
I'm not going to say Worilds was an all-pro waiting to happen. He wasn't. But to say he was a lesser talent than Starks (who quite frankly sucked at his position and was part of the worst positional grouping this team has had in the last 15 years), is just wrong.
Well at least this isn't a "bash Tomlin" thread...
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
Seems pretty difficult, IMO, to directly compare an OT to an OLB. Overall, I think Starks contribution to the Steelers and that first SB under Tomlin was superior than Worilds contributions. I think Starks, while not great, was solid enough to keep the OL (and not a good one, I don't think) in balance when Marvel finally couldn't do it anymore.
P
POP
Guest
I can only partially buy your assertion.
In other words, if we had a Greg Lloyd, Porter or Woodley in their prime (which JJ should be, age wise), how often would they be "rotated" off the field?
Ummm, how about barely ever. Those guys were too good to take off the field. But with the lackluster JJ, you don't fret taking him off the field, because you don't miss anything with him off it; Moats is at least as good so you might as well rotate.
So, yea, JJ wasn't playing as many snaps, and that partially is why his #s don't stand up, but the reason he is off the field more often is because they don't miss anything when he isn't there.
How often was Greg Lloyd sat for a breather? I don't recall seeing it ever.
JJ will likely not make the team or be traded by the end of his contract if not before. It does not seem to be his desire or ability to learn but his physical ability. I suspect physically he was limited and the wrist injury did not help him. If the numbers I looked at comparing the speed of JJ to our seventh round inside line backer are any indication this years seventh rounder was faster. I believe that his college production was what got JJ selected. Many players make a step up from college to the pros and so far JJ has not been able to do so. He had poor combine numbers that showed his athletic ability compared to many others and I suspect that is why he fell down the boards. Faced with that the steelers decided to roll the dice on him. Sometimes it pans out. A great example of that is James Harrison who was cut by the ravens and the steelers and then came back to become DPOY. JJ will not be the only time they take a chance on a guy who does not pan out.
Chickillo might be the guy that replaces him in the future. He was a defensive end in college and recently began the change to OLB. This involved loosing weight, learning a new position, and making the team from the practice squad. I suspect he might be very much on the rise. Generally it takes at least the second year for players doing this to begin to show something and many do not look valuable till year 3. I suspect Dupree will look very good this year and believe the pick at outside linebacker from this year will begin to show somethings as well. He seems to have a good background in coverage and has great speed so he might be a sub package guy this year.
In looking at what we have on the team now I suspect that the retirement of Harrison and Moates and the failure to resign Jones will not have a big effect on the team at the end of the season, the replacements are already on the team. Harrison is one of those guys that you don't find very often and his replacement will not be the same but can still be effective in different ways.
There seems to be a transition from power to speed in several spots on the teams defense and JJ seems to have neither and does not look like he can develop either one up to this point. I do not believe it is lack of motivation on his part, I suspect that his effort so far is what has him still on the team and the coaches speaking highly of him.
Chickillo might be the guy that replaces him in the future. He was a defensive end in college and recently began the change to OLB. This involved loosing weight, learning a new position, and making the team from the practice squad. I suspect he might be very much on the rise. Generally it takes at least the second year for players doing this to begin to show something and many do not look valuable till year 3. I suspect Dupree will look very good this year and believe the pick at outside linebacker from this year will begin to show somethings as well. He seems to have a good background in coverage and has great speed so he might be a sub package guy this year.
In looking at what we have on the team now I suspect that the retirement of Harrison and Moates and the failure to resign Jones will not have a big effect on the team at the end of the season, the replacements are already on the team. Harrison is one of those guys that you don't find very often and his replacement will not be the same but can still be effective in different ways.
There seems to be a transition from power to speed in several spots on the teams defense and JJ seems to have neither and does not look like he can develop either one up to this point. I do not believe it is lack of motivation on his part, I suspect that his effort so far is what has him still on the team and the coaches speaking highly of him.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Which is why I used the only independent method out there on the internet right now to compare "value" of contributions.
PFF didn't exist as far back Starks so we really don't know how bad he was at LT. Based on some of the stuff at Football Outsiders, he wasn't that good. Offensive line in 2005-2006 (when he accumulated 30 starts and 15 AV at RT) wasn't great. We are (as a group) average at best. And in 2006, we were 31st in the league when running behind the RT:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2006
Funny how after that season it led to Starks BEING DEMOTED to backup. But somehow that 4-years of service and performance earned back-to-back transition tag designations and paying him almost $23 million IN CASH from 2008-2010 all for the same 34 starts and 20 AV production that he accumulated the previous 3 seasons prior to the tag fiasco. Remember, that $23 million in cash is almost identical to what Faneca wanted as part his contract dispute. Faneca didn't miss one start those three seasons (2008-2010), had two pro bowl appearances and had 25 AV (25% more than Starks).
But somehow we were sold a bill of goods that Faneca was "much too expensive", we "couldn't afford him while maintaining the pieces on the team to be competitive". I'm not implying Faneca would have been a good signing as a free agent in 2008 (he wasn't), but what I am saying is they wasted an enormous amount of resources on a mediocre talent, that they were almost prepared to do it again with Worilds and it wouldn't shock me at all if they do it with Jones.
This team DID NOT learn and very likely might commit the same mistake in the future.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 700
- Points
- 113
he did have that one interception around the goal line last year. so that;s something. i guess
Last edited:
I have no problem with the rotation. Why bring James Harrison back if you are not going to play him. Jones getting hurt brought James back..the Steelers saw that he still has some gas in the tank. I'm not comparing Jones to those guys he has a long ways to go. But I did see growth. He did have 9 tackles and a big forced fumble in the playoffs
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
Starks was a decent left tackle. The Steelers kept cutting him and bringing him back. This never made any sense to me. As a player Starks > Worilds.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
I understand why you used the AV, just pointing out that I don't know if that tells the full story as I believe it does not. AND, I wouldn't care what PFF had to say about anything, btw.
I'm not even arguing whether Starks was or was not overpaid. I'm only arguing that, as an overall positive to the team, it is my belief that the year when Starks was at LT after Marvel went down, Starks kept the line solidified enough to get to a SB and win it. None of us, of course, know whether we might or might not have gotten there with someone else, only that we did with him. That OL was less than spectacular (colon was at RT!). An even worse OL got to the SB 2 years later with Johnathan Fricken Scott at LT. Lost, though.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,116
- Reaction score
- 9,586
- Points
- 113
I like to look at JJ as the glass 25% full, upside = lots of room for growth. Needs to add strength and a pass rush move other than bull rush, there's a chance...but cmon tick tock....
He's no Peezy,Lloyd, or insert name of any of the dominant OLBs we've had...problem is neither is Dupree, Moats or an aging Silverback. We lack a dominant pass rusher and nobody benefits from the the opposing OL having to account for that dominant rusher. So we have 4 relatively cheap rotational LBs that are all painfully average, this unit is a product of a cap hell we are pulling out of where we simply drafted poorly and lacked the resources to allocate to the position since our cap dollars were going elsewhere. Pass rushers are expensive, it seems the band aid was rotational players. We could sure use a dominant force again.
He's no Peezy,Lloyd, or insert name of any of the dominant OLBs we've had...problem is neither is Dupree, Moats or an aging Silverback. We lack a dominant pass rusher and nobody benefits from the the opposing OL having to account for that dominant rusher. So we have 4 relatively cheap rotational LBs that are all painfully average, this unit is a product of a cap hell we are pulling out of where we simply drafted poorly and lacked the resources to allocate to the position since our cap dollars were going elsewhere. Pass rushers are expensive, it seems the band aid was rotational players. We could sure use a dominant force again.
P
POP
Guest
Now come on, you still are holding out hope for JJ but have concluded Dupree is already nothing special after just his rookie year? As rookies, Lloyd had half a sack and Porter 2. Bud put up 4, the same # as did Woodley. But you have already concluded Bud won't be as good as those guys?
That doesn't seem logical.
Starks was the only Steeler OL who started in all three of their last Super Bowls. I think it was more a case of poor evaluation on the part of MT and the coaching staff, as they obviously didn't want to play him, the FO kept re-signing him, and the coaches would end up playing him because they could not find or develop anyone better.
I had my doubts about Jones from Day One because of the spinal stenosis and I didn't think he would be able to get strong enough to be an effective NFL linebacker. Not that I wanted him to be a bust, but it looks like I was right.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I didn't realize if you started in a Super Bowl that magically makes you better as a football player vs. someone that doesn't. I'll have to remember that idiocy next time a free agent discussions comes up.
Starks sucked on the field and grossly sucked valuable resources from this team that could have been used for the betterment of the team. An entry level replacement player probably could have played as well as Starks for $1 million. The true measure of Starks' "talent" was when he sat on his fat *** healthy and age 28 at home for a whole summer not getting a SNIFF in free agency (not even MINIMUM SALARY!) and just happened to be available 4 weeks into the season when Jonathan Scott (who was bad but was at least paid like he was bad) got injured.
No one will ever convince me there was a good scouting report on Max Starks in any front office around the whole ******* NFL except the one right here in Pittsburgh. For us to pay that player $22 million in cash for a 3-year period was arguably our worst use of financial salary cap resources since the Salary Cap started in 1993. Some players have hoodwinked us before. Some players get the money and get fat and lazy (that is a risk you always take), but never in my life did I see a player that was actually benched heading into his free agency year get the transition tag, not once but TWICE (the second tag leading to a long term contract with $15 million in guarantees). It was ludicrous.
It was probably worse than trading up in the 4th round for a punter, but that's too close to call.....
Starks sucked on the field and grossly sucked valuable resources from this team that could have been used for the betterment of the team. An entry level replacement player probably could have played as well as Starks for $1 million. The true measure of Starks' "talent" was when he sat on his fat *** healthy and age 28 at home for a whole summer not getting a SNIFF in free agency (not even MINIMUM SALARY!) and just happened to be available 4 weeks into the season when Jonathan Scott (who was bad but was at least paid like he was bad) got injured.
No one will ever convince me there was a good scouting report on Max Starks in any front office around the whole ******* NFL except the one right here in Pittsburgh. For us to pay that player $22 million in cash for a 3-year period was arguably our worst use of financial salary cap resources since the Salary Cap started in 1993. Some players have hoodwinked us before. Some players get the money and get fat and lazy (that is a risk you always take), but never in my life did I see a player that was actually benched heading into his free agency year get the transition tag, not once but TWICE (the second tag leading to a long term contract with $15 million in guarantees). It was ludicrous.
It was probably worse than trading up in the 4th round for a punter, but that's too close to call.....
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 36,008
- Reaction score
- 40,926
- Points
- 113
- Location
- between $2 short & ten buck two
Uncle Jarvis NEEDS a break out year. I don't think his "break out" year will be anything special, UNLESS you compare it ONLY to his previous year's stats. 5 sacks ??? He owes us a BIG year, let's hope he delivers???
Salute the nation
Salute the nation
Fact remains that for several years they could not find a better LT and as I said at the time, Starks spent camp and the first four weeks of the season on his couch watching "The Young and the Restless" and with one week of practice was instantly their second-best OL at the time. Of course that's when Pornstar Zerlein was the OL coach, but it is what it is.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 13,588
- Reaction score
- 18,647
- Points
- 113
OJ has a better shot at a breakout this year than Jarvis