• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Steelers Draft Rumors

S

SteelerFan448

Regular Member
Member
Forefather
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
16,933
Reaction score
20,350
Points
113
On The Bootleg Football Podcast (), it was mentioned the Steelers and Bears have discussed a potential draft day trade. They seemed to believe it would be the Steelers moving up for a tackle (I would assume Paris Johnson).

It's possible the draft board could fall where the Steelers are left with a lot of borderline 1st-2nd round prospects at 17 forcing a reach if there isn't a trade down partner, so I can see making this type of move. However, with three top-50 picks, would it be better to capitalize with quantity over quality? They'd basically be moving up for Johnson/Jones (I'd assume) at No. 9 in exchange for No. 17 and 49 (with some possible late-rounders thrown in on either side).
 
Ugh, I’m still coping with the Devin Bush trade up disaster. Too many areas that could use improvement to trade away what would likely be #32.
 
Don’t trade up and give up the 32 pick. Either stay at 17 or trade down some to pick up extra pick.
These drafts are too much of a crap shoot to be trading up unless you get really lucky like we did with Troy. Then we could get unlucky like we did with Bushy! That one really stung!
Stay put at 17 and draft the best player at that spot. Possibly if the offer is sweet, trade #32 only if we get that teams second and third.
 
If your looking at a point chart, the 17th and 49th pick is about 10 points higher than number 9. I don't see them giving up 17 and 32. That 32nd pick is going to attract allot of interest after day one is over and could easily garner a couple more day two picks if they were so inclined.
 
Dang, we need to much to trade multiple picks to move up.

On the PLUS, they’re saying for a Tackle……. We need one badly but, at 17 we will get a good enough one.


Salute the nation
 
BLITZ said:
what would it take to trade the Bucs for Devon? the right Devon
Click to expand...
i'd be inclined to flip that 32nd pick for Devin White.
Essentially flipping Claypool for him
 
In my opinion this team needs volume of good over one great. If anything I'd move down in the first to pick up another third. Hard pass on a move up. Particularly for an oline. 17 is good enough.
 
I’m still just amazed that the rumor is about an Offensive Tackle………….

How long has it been since Coach Tom Lin & Co. drafted a first round OL ?


Salute the nation
 
Last edited:
IMO, there are maybe 2 LTs who should be drafted in round 1. They are Johnson and Jones but neither is a plug in play starter at LT this year. You don't move up and give up draft capital for a non-starter. We need to trade back and get more picks unless we have an immediate impact player available at #17.
 
I guess I'll be the cheese standing alone..........

I might be OK with a move up to 9, but there's a lot of stipulations that would go with it.
IF we were to go up and get Peter Skoronski at #9? I'm IN!
This guy is a STUD.
Our O-Line is garbage and we have what we think is a franchise QB back there. We certainly drafted him like we believe that. And so far, he seems to be playing the part, too.
But if we can't protect him, and he's constantly getting car killed and running for his life, it'll be a short shelf life for KP.

I know everyone is calling Skoronski a T-Rex with his "short arms for a LT", but I don't put much stock in that.
He's a technician, a student of the game, and brings his lunch pail each and every day.
He would anchor the line for the next decade plus.
The absolute worst case scenario, which I put zero stock in, he'd kick inside to G and still be on the line for a decade plus.
But I absolutely believe he'll play LT and excel.

Now, what would it cost to move up to 9 from 17?
The Bears probably want their 2 back. I don't know if I'm parting with that.
But would the Bears take our 2 instead? And even then, I don't know if I want to part with that, either.
I realize the Bears wouldn't do it for charitable reasons, and it will cost something.
But we have 7 picks this year, none in the 5th or 6th round, two 2s and two 7s, and four total picks in the top 80.
I'd do my best to keep the four picks in first three rounds ( #17 - #80 ) and have no problem unloading the 4th, the 7ths, and bag of balls or scrub player the Bears may need.
 
So if they want Broderick jones and don’t think he will be there at 17, then trade Dionte, a seventh and our third for Houston’s 12th overall, then trade down with the 17th to get a lower first and another third or second round pick. Trade down with the 32nd and get at least an extra fourth or fifth rounder…

Either draft Addison or Dell to replace Dionte then draft that kid from West Virginia later in the
fourth or fifth

That frees up valuable cap space next year and pretty much solidifies the offense around Pickett through his rookie contract. The only thing in question is whether to replace Chuks at RT, and honestly if they trade Dotson, they likely could take a flyer on a RT type that might be an answer next year…

Then you still have at least two seconds and probably a third, and maybe more mid round picks to address the defensive needs… its the best of both worlds scenario
 
fedderone said:
I guess I'll be the cheese standing alone..........

I might be OK with a move up to 9, but there's a lot of stipulations that would go with it.
IF we were to go up and get Peter Skoronski at #9? I'm IN!
This guy is a STUD.
Our O-Line is garbage and we have what we think is a franchise QB back there. We certainly drafted him like we believe that. And so far, he seems to be playing the part, too.
But if we can't protect him, and he's constantly getting car killed and running for his life, it'll be a short shelf life for KP.

I know everyone is calling Skoronski a T-Rex with his "short arms for a LT", but I don't put much stock in that.
He's a technician, a student of the game, and brings his lunch pail each and every day.
He would anchor the line for the next decade plus.
The absolute worst case scenario, which I put zero stock in, he'd kick inside to G and still be on the line for a decade plus.
But I absolutely believe he'll play LT and excel.

Now, what would it cost to move up to 9 from 17?
The Bears probably want their 2 back. I don't know if I'm parting with that.
But would the Bears take our 2 instead? And even then, I don't know if I want to part with that, either.
I realize the Bears wouldn't do it for charitable reasons, and it will cost something.
But we have 7 picks this year, none in the 5th or 6th round, two 2s and two 7s, and four total picks in the top 80.
I'd do my best to keep the four picks in first three rounds ( #17 - #80 ) and have no problem unloading the 4th, the 7ths, and bag of balls or scrub player the Bears may need.
Click to expand...

Great post fedderone,

I’d like to add one thing. REGARDLESS if KP turns out to not be the Franchise QB we all desire, you still need that OL (LT) to protect him or any other QB back there. It’s not like the LT s success is dependent on the QB’s success. You need protection regardless of who is back there. BEN hid this part very well, for years and now it’s time to pay the piper…..

GET OL EARLY, currently LT seems to be the need.


Salute the nation
 
Drink IRON City said:
Great post fedderone,

I’d like to add one thing. REGARDLESS if KP turns out to not be the Franchise QB we all desire, you still need that OL (LT) to protect him or any other QB back there. It’s not like the LT s success is dependent on the QB’s success. You need protection regardless of who is back there. BEN hid this part very well, for years and now it’s time to pay the piper…..

GET OL EARLY, currently LT seems to be the need.


Salute the nation
Click to expand...
100% accurate, D-I-C.
I believe in the trenches.
Always have and always will.
I'd rather have the All-Pro O and D liners, with average skill positions, then the other way around.
Solid trenches hide a lot of flaws and make average skill positions look like studs.
Imagine what a clean pocket does for KP and our receiving corps, and what actual running lanes do for Najee?
We've ignored the lines for too long now.
We need to address those early and often.
 
fedderone said:
100% accurate, D-I-C.
I believe in the trenches.
Always have and always will.
I'd rather have the All-Pro O and D liners, with average skill positions, then the other way around.
Solid trenches hide a lot of flaws and make average skill positions look like studs.
Imagine what a clean pocket does for KP and our receiving corps, and what actual running lanes do for Najee?
We've ignored the lines for too long now.
We need to address those early and often.
Click to expand...
"Najee the suck"
/Cooch
 
fedderone said:
I guess I'll be the cheese standing alone..........

I might be OK with a move up to 9, but there's a lot of stipulations that would go with it.
IF we were to go up and get Peter Skoronski at #9? I'm IN!
This guy is a STUD.
Our O-Line is garbage and we have what we think is a franchise QB back there. We certainly drafted him like we believe that. And so far, he seems to be playing the part, too.
But if we can't protect him, and he's constantly getting car killed and running for his life, it'll be a short shelf life for KP.

I know everyone is calling Skoronski a T-Rex with his "short arms for a LT", but I don't put much stock in that.
He's a technician, a student of the game, and brings his lunch pail each and every day.
He would anchor the line for the next decade plus.
The absolute worst case scenario, which I put zero stock in, he'd kick inside to G and still be on the line for a decade plus.
But I absolutely believe he'll play LT and excel.

Now, what would it cost to move up to 9 from 17?
The Bears probably want their 2 back. I don't know if I'm parting with that.
But would the Bears take our 2 instead? And even then, I don't know if I want to part with that, either.
I realize the Bears wouldn't do it for charitable reasons, and it will cost something.
But we have 7 picks this year, none in the 5th or 6th round, two 2s and two 7s, and four total picks in the top 80.
I'd do my best to keep the four picks in first three rounds ( #17 - #80 ) and have no problem unloading the 4th, the 7ths, and bag of balls or scrub player the Bears may need.
Click to expand...
IIRC he has 32 1/4 inch arms… there is a unspoken rule in the NFL that nfl Tackles must have 33 inch arms or else a magical dragon will swoop out of the sky and eat your QB. The rule of thumb is a good OT will have 34 inch arms and anyone under 33 never gets a chance to play T regardless of how good…

Since the rational is based in leverage and force impact, it stands to reason that pure arm length isn’t really the best overall measure of that… first of all differences in finger lengths wouldn’t mean **** because you aren’t finger blocking anyone and punches only matter from the end of your fist… leg lenth and torso length proportions also would matter…

Just going by arm length is probably akin to judging wrs by 40 time… a hand me down historic metric that matters less than old scouts seemed to think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top