Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Consistent Offensive Line Strategy Eludes Steelers - But Does It Matter?

Photo

Good stuff here from the man who goes by 'Man of Steel' in Spanish 'Hombre de Acero'. The Argentina based author, who's for quite some time been writing excellent stuff at Steel Curtain Rising, has a thoughtful breakdown of the Steelers offensive line situation in recent history. - Michael B. -

*************

Browse through the roster that Mike Tomlin will attempt to lead to Lombardi Number Seven and you'll discover a composite story on Steelers successful franchise-building philosophy, "The Steelers Way."

The Steelers Way transcends any one individual. Look to the wide receivers, defensive line, and linebackers and you'll find examples of rookie free agent, first, mid, and late round draft success, and you'll feel the thumb prints of Mike Tomlin, Kevin Colbert, Bill Cowher and, with Hines Ward and Aaron Smith, even Tom Donahoe.  

Yes, each position area of the Steelers 2011 roster reveals a deliberate, sustainable competitiveness plan developed by the Black and Gold Braintrust.

Each unit that is, except for...

Star-divide

....the offensive line.

A harsh statement for a team that's been to Three Super Bowls in Six Years? Yes. Too Harsh? Let's find out.

 

Dr. Jekyll Meet Mr. Hyde

 

The Steelers surprised some by locking Willie Colon up with a long term deal. A warm and fuzzy afterglow accompanied Willie Colon's home town discount, but perhaps someone should caution Colon to keep one eye open.

Recent history suggests that such a warning is warranted.

Consider:

Sean Mahan inked a five year deal in '07 then...

  • Pittsburgh traded him back to Tampa Bay a year later

After failing to come to terms with Alan Fanaca, the in 2007 Steelers signed Kendall Simmons to a four year extension in 2007 and then...

  • ...cut him in 2009

In 2008 the Steelers signed Justin Hartwig to a 2 year deal and one year later they re-upped him for four years in 2009, and then...

  • ...cut Hartwig less than a year later.

More instructive yet is the Max Starks saga. Starks got benched in '07, named transition player in '08, franchise player in '09, then signed a four year deal in 2009... only to of course get cut two years later.

Further clouding the record is of the "could haves." Prior to the '08 season the Steelers offered Marvel Smith a long-term deal only to be rebuffed. The Steelers dodged a bullet as injuries ended Smith's career in a pivotal early season match up against Jacksonville.

Raise your hand if you can discern a consistent stable offensive line building strategy in these zig-zags.

It wasn't always like this.

Bill Cowher and Tom Donahoe and then Cowher and Kevin Colbert seemed to have an unofficial policy to use a premium (top 3) pick on a lineman.

Cowher-Donahoe's first pick was Leon Searcy in 1992. They didn't draft a lineman with a premium pick in '93 or '94, but they did so in '95, '96, '97, '98, and ‘99. They also made key free agent signings during this time in the form of Todd Kalis, Tom Newberry and, by far most notably, Wil Wolford in '96.

Some picks failed. Brendan Stai flashed then faded. Photos of Jamain Stevens, Paul Wiggins, Chris Conrad, and Kris Farris could easily accompany any Webster's definition for "bust."

Cowher-Colbert used premium picks to bring in Marvel Smith (2nd, '00), Kendall Simmons (1st, '02) Trai Essex (3rd, ‘05) and Max Starks (3rd, '04) and acquiring Jeff Hartings via free agency. Failures aside, offensive line was always a priority.

In contrast, Tomlin-Colbert, perhaps through no fault of their own, did not use a single premium pick on offensive line in their first three drafts, and their free agent moves (Mahan, Hartwig, and Flozell Adams) have yielded short term impact at best.

Certainly, the picks of Maurkice Pouncy and Marcus Gilbert reverse the trend, but the musical chairs at right guard this preseason show that a long-term offensive line building strategy continues to elude Tomlin and Colbert.

Having established that fact, the next question is, does it matter?

"With free agency the question isn't can a guy play in 2 years, its can he play now." -  Bob Purvis, Cincinnati, Ohio,1997

Bob Pruvis is just an old friend, and no football God (although he did indirectly predict Bill Belichick while Belichick was still best known for his horrendous failure as Cleveland's head coach.)

Free agency and the salary cap were still relatively new to the NFL in 1997, and Bob's point was simple: "The Future is Now in Free Agency."

That philosophy runs against the very grain of "the Steelers way." In fact, Pittsburgh's largely disproven it.

Yet, they seemed to have embraced it on offensive line to good, if not great, effect.

Tomlin and Colbert quickly realized their mistake in Sean Manhan, and traded away him and his salary.

While no world beater, Hartwig was good enough to help them win Super Bowl XLIII, and when it became clear that he'd given all he was going to give, they replaced him with Pouncey.

Max Starks was derided as the league's "most expensive back up tackle" at the start of the 2008 season, but that expensive insurance plan saved the season when Marvel Smith went down.

When I learned that the Steelers cut Starks and planned to start Jonathan Scott, I shuddered, thinking of Jim Wexell's calculation that Ben Roethlisberger was sacked at twice the rate per-drop back with Scott in at tackle.

I remain far from sold on Scott, but Michael Bean's point that Scott offers better bang for the buck is hard to argue with.

Mike Tomlin harps on the imperative of excelling at "situational football." Well, he and Kevin Colbert have played "situational offensive line building" and remained, "above the line."

Be that as it may, the Steelers offensive line has not been a team strength for the past 3 seasons, even if one concedes that Ben Roethlisberger is largely responsible for many if not most of the sacks he takes.

And if the Steelers have succeeded in spite of their line, does that mean that much of the conventional wisdom about winning football goes out the window?

Joe Gibbs won three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks in large part because great offensive lines formed the basis of his offense. A great offensive line played a similar part in Bill Parcells second Super Bowl title.

Conversely, the 2000 Jacksonville Jaguars began the season as Super Bowl favorites who were armed to the teeth at the skill positions, only to finish out of the playoffs because its line fell apart.

In response to a recent post here on BTSC by Ivan Cole, Neal Coolong offered this:

As for the offensive line…I have no clue how that unit made it to two Super Bowls. If anything, it shows evidence suggesting a strong offensive line is overrated. They may have won quite a bit with them, but that does not mean the Steelers should make their Modus Operendi having a substandard offensive line.

Neal's comment reminded me about how after the 2008 draft Mike Tomlin challenged conventional wisdom arguing that a quarterback who has more weapons, needs less from his line. Ed Bouchette defended Tomlin in an on-line chat, and even Steelers Digest editor Bob Labriola got in on the debate.

Superficially, events since 2008 would seem to vindicate Tomlin's thesis.

I remain skeptical. The 2008 Steelers succeeded because the offensive line improved, improvement evident from about December onward.

The 2010 edition presents a different story - one of men bonding together in the face of constant injury-induced chaos and ultimately seeing their whole become greater than the sum of their parts.

But Mike Tomlin clearly knows more about football than I do, and the Steelers success is sufficient to call the conventional wisdom on the importance of offensive line into question.

Where does all of this take us? I leave that to you.

  • Do the Steelers have a coherent offensive line strategy unduly ignored here?
  • Can we consider "situational offensive line building" a viable element in a championship-winning strategy?
  • Or has the game of football changed so much that offensive line is less important than it once was?

 

Discuss.

Comment 63 comments  |  Add comment  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

The Steelers are finally starting to address the offensive line. With Pouncey and Colon signed up to be there for a while, I’m thinking we get some real answers at the Guard positions this year as to who will be sticking around. Bet on Legs for RG, dude balls. I’m hoping we upgrade LG soon, I’m getting tired of Kemo.

Great post

by klompus on Sep 8, 2011 12:42 AM EDT reply actions  

Give it time, it's Kugler's second year

Kemo is good in that he KILLS people in the run game and plays to the whistle. He’s got a low frame, which is good for leverage, but it’s bad against a speed rush because he moves like he’s in quicksand when someone gets beside him. The mean streak is good and bad too — he seems like he hates whoever is lined up against him, but his emotions have hurt the team in the past.

The biggest issue is and will be LT until Gilbert comes along further. He came with a huge endorsement from Pouncey and hasn’t disappointed yet. The reason Pouncey jumped right into the lineup is because there wasn’t someone there who was even serviceable; at least Jon Scott can hold down the fort long enough to bring Gilbert along, maybe this season or maybe not. But I am excited to see what we have there.

by Mike Frazer on Sep 8, 2011 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

heck,
and plays to the whistle.

he’s so good, he keeps playing after the whistle.

by stylepoints on Sep 8, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think the Steelers have used offensive line picks when there were guys they wanted, I don’t think they are going to pencil in an O-Lineman just because it’s the place they need to upgrade. I think everyone knows that, it just helps to remember when thinking about how few top picks we have used.

As for the importance of an O-Line, I agree with Tomlin, with more weapons the O-Line’s job changes. With Bettis we needed a top O-Line, the man didn’t squeeze through cracks, if you got him behind the line he was down, if he got three steps forward he was going to plow through you. Lesser caliber receivers need to be set up with running the ball and more time to get open. If you are throwing the ball to Mike Wallace going deep you don’t wait three seconds, because he’ll run out the other end of the stadium.

2008 our O-Line came together enough to be serviceable, and Ben made miracles happen. We drafted Pouncey and gained consistency running up the middle as well as improved protection up the middle for Ben.

The biggest thing to me is Salary cap football, you have to be cheap somewhere (not just in money but in usage of picks). Our defense is expensive, and our offense has to find ways to save some money and picks. Cowher spent on the line, then skimped on WR, controlling the ballgame with pounding out yards. Now we have talent at WR and throw more, so we skimp a bit on the O-Line. The ideal situation is to have enough success drafting that you save money by having young talent, and fill the normal talent gaps with draft picks.

Look at GB, their roster is sick and a lot of it is young cheap guys. That’s what happens when you get a nice run of really good drafts. The opposite side is you end up paying FA vets more money to be less talented than a good draft pick would be, because your picks bombed.

by Phantaskippy on Sep 8, 2011 1:13 AM EDT reply actions  

phanta it is as you say

last year was uncapped so we picked up flozell @ $5mm per year, this year cap is tight and he wouldn’t play for less than $5mm so bye-bye. but this led me to another thought, would Packers have won SB last year with 15 on IR? My answer is no because those guys all count 100% against the cap so Packers would never been able to replace those 15 with a $120 or even $130mm cap. But no cap also helped us out too, Flozell was a luxury we probably couldn’t afford in a capped year. (huh, just like this year:)

Bottom line, if you have a bunch of great linebackers and an MVP safety you have to skimp somewhere else (unless you are the Packers who were better at drafting and developing CBs than anyone else) which just happens to be our O-line and our CBs.

by kk99 on Sep 8, 2011 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

Good Point about the Salary Cap

I’d thought of that, but did not include it in the article (already long enough.) But with big $$$ committed at LB, QB, Secondary, etc… I do wonder if some of what has gone on is a function of needing to skimp some where.

by Hombre de Acero on Sep 8, 2011 7:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

of course it is skimping, that's at the very nature of the cap

flozell was still wanted but not at $5mm. packers will have problems with the cap if too many of their young CB corp. become FAs prior to 2014 when the cap will go up $40-50mm.

by kk99 on Sep 8, 2011 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

"Now we have talent at WR and throw more"

Yes, but not because we have spent really high picks on them. Our top 4 receivers are 3 3rd rounders and a sixth rounder. We have simply gotten great value there. Of course there was Sweed… so, so, so, sad.

" Just go and lay your hand on a Pittsburgh Steeler fan, and then I think you'll finally understand"

" In America" Charlie Daniels Band

by idiscgolftexas on Sep 9, 2011 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

What

Blah blah blah this it about the offensive line that took them to 3 of the last 6 super bowls who cares what they do right now as long as they hold their own like the past has and they have the staff for it.

by steelfandv on Sep 8, 2011 3:15 AM EDT reply actions  

reading comprehension issues?

the title itself suggests that it may not matter, but at same time, most ‘experts’ and coaches will start every conversation with the need to have a top flight line that’s played together for a long while.

Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)

by Michael Bean on Sep 8, 2011 3:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes

But that was in spite of the offensive line, not because of it. It’s a testament to their defense, improvisational ability, and luck.

They HAVE upgraded the interior, but BPA or not, they need to spend a higher round pick on a tackle who doesn’t have significant physical limitations soon.

"Football combines the two worst things about America: It is violence punctuated by committee meetings" -George Will

by lottwasgangsta on Sep 8, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Interesting Poast

I honestly don’t think its that they ignore the O-line exactly. The fact of the matter is that our FO drafts for the long term and they tend to do this especially on defense. We’ve seen a lot of depth picks aimed at replacing an aging D.

However our OL is fairly young and the idea there is to see if the talent progresses.

One could make almost the same argument about our secondary. The fact is our defense revolves around the front 7, our offense revolves around the QB and WRs now. The O line, much like the secondary, is not the top priority of the unit.

by Mechem on Sep 8, 2011 4:02 AM EDT reply actions  

Flip Side to the Coin

I think if, anything, this offensive line “neglect” (for lack of a better word, although that is too strong) comes from the fact that Tomlin and Colbert seem to be more intent on sticking to their draft boards.

Sticking to your board does not always bear fruit (Limas Sweed, please step forward), but when you start straying you end up picking the Tory Edwards of the world.

by Hombre de Acero on Sep 8, 2011 7:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

The Article points out the obvious

The Oline became a liability in 2006. They were destroyed by strong defensive fronts and crushed in at least 4 games I remember. Baltimore twice, Jacksonville and SD. It has never been fixed since and its been 5 years. Even when we won it in 2008, Philly and Tennessee crushed them. Luckily we didn’t play those guys in the post season.
   The reason the Steelers continue to win is the defense and Rothlisberger’s ability to escape pressure and buy time. The running game is very inconsistent and 3rd and short shows just how piss poor the line has been.
     Colbert’s record shows he does well with the 1st pick. But really how hard is that. Some of them were no brainers. Most of the picks were guys ranked at the top of the board by just about everybody. Roth and Miller fell in our laps. Most have been need picks yet he’s disciplined enough not to reach unlike most GMs.
  Well you only get so many #1 picks. The problem has been the inability to draft well in the mid rounds and later in the trenches. Of the roughly 30 OL and DL picks since he started only the top round picks have been good. He’s had maybe 5 others that were decent. In fact overall he’s only had a 3 or 4 drafts where he got more then 2 or 3 players worth keeping.
  So not only does Colbert/Staff not have an eye for non-obvious but he’s made some bad decision evaluating the guys we have or others. I attribute this to panic because he can’t draft the guys. From my understanding he offered close to what the stupid Jets gave over the hill Faneca. Faneca was gone in two years. Then the biggest blunder of his tenure he gave Simmons not only a new contract, but pretty hefty one. Simmons was the worse lineman on the team and the fact that undrafted FA’s replaced him with no drop off proves it. He grabbed Mahan off a TB team that had been struggling at the Oline for years. Why would TB let a guy go when their own line sux? Starks was overpaid. Kemoeatu is overpaid. Overpaying guys is the worst thing a GM can do. We are now at the cap limit.
  We have a franchise QB approaching age 30. My priority as a GM would be to protect that QB. Whether by pass blocking or a good running game which generally needs a good line. Instead we continue to over draft at our deepest position LB. We bring in Burress when we have more WRs then we know what to do with and supposedly we’re a running team. We continue to keep players past their prime when we have better guys at that position. Hood and Sylvester can step for Farrior and Smith at this point and time and play better. That will free up money to keep future players that we don’t have to replace in the draft and then draft oline.
   Do we need the Hogs or the Dallas Oline of the nineties. No. But what we got now is a problem. And the secondary is a problem. This Oline will get Roth dinged up or killed against good defensive lines. Our secondary will be shredded by the elite passing teams. So despite our superiority as the skill positions and the front 7 of the defense we will have a hard time winning a SB until these units improve. And this excuse about him taking to much time is BS by the coaches. I watch our line completely whiff at pass blocking consistently. Other then center they completely suck at pass blocking. And if Roth becomes immobile then its over. You can take that to the bank. Ask our other top ranked defenses and running games how many SBs they won since Bradshaw up to Roth.

by SteelerJunkie on Sep 8, 2011 6:21 AM EDT reply actions  

nice, good stuff, EXCEPT

You make awesome points, and I appreciate the way you laid that all out. Agree on some of the blunders made contract wise in recent years. Starks deal was so bad to me; Simmons too. Kinda think the Colon deal was a bit excessive also, even though I definitely think that Colon deserved some sort of multi-year deal. BUT, yikes, that’s a lot of scratch for a B+ tackle at best; should have put the cap at about 3-years, $19 million.

Anyway, you do make one big error though in your analysis and editorial.

And this excuse about him taking to much time is BS by the coaches. I watch our line completely whiff at pass blocking consistently. Other then center they completely suck at pass blocking.

I don’t doubt you ‘watch’, but in this year’s preseason Annual for Maple Street Press, one article went about timing every last passing play of the 2010 season to try to actually get all the data necessary to conclude whether or not Big Ben did or did not actually hold on to the ball too long. Of course, the study could be refined and made more comprehensive, but the results were conclusive man. Big Ben holds on to the ball too long, and the rewards for him trying to make plays sandlot style don’t pay nearly as big of dividends as the common fan or announcer believes. It was an awesome article and if you aren’t inclined to purchase the publication, it might just end up on BTSC someday in the distant, but not too distant future.

I agree with you on many things though. The secondary and OL will have to exceed expectations and play well in big spots for this team to achieve its lofty goals in Indy next February.

Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)

by Michael Bean on Sep 8, 2011 6:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Holding the Ball Too Long

It’s good analysis, but one stat that cannot be quantified is: how many interceptions did he avoid by not forcing the pass into coverage to try and avoid holding the ball too long? I agree that there are many times he should just throw it out of bounds…but this is how his game has evolved…we take the good with the bad. I’d rather see him hold it and take a sack (as frustrating as that is) than to rush a pass that ends up in a turnover just for the sake of getting rid of the ball in a timely manner.

by pistil_stamen on Sep 8, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

btw

welcome to the site. just saw that you’re a new commentor, which probably means you have no idea what the hell im talking about with that ‘preseason publication.’

anyway, if you’re curious, you can read about it here and check out the table of contents, as well as a bit more background on the project. the link goes to an article here on the site btw.

Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)

by Michael Bean on Sep 8, 2011 6:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

Agree to Disagree on Firsts

You make a lot of excellent points, but I would not undervalue Kevin Colbert’s ability to hit on his first round picks.

If you want to see the difference between the Steelers of the 1990’s and of the last decade (ie lost AFC Championships vs. won AFC Championships + 2 Super Bowls) I think you’ll find that the ability to pick well consistently in the first round is a tremendous differentiation factor.

And, if doing well in the first were something that is easy, then the Lion and Bengals would both meet in the Super Bowl this year, given the high number of top 5 picks they’ve had in the past decade.

by Hombre de Acero on Sep 8, 2011 7:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

+ 0-16

"The standard is the standard" - Mike Tomlin

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Sep 8, 2011 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

+55 (Matt Millen's number)

"You have two hemispheres in your brain - a left and a right side. The left side controls the right side of your body and right controls the left half. It's a fact. Therefore, left-handers are the only people in their right minds."

Bill "Spaceman" Lee
Source: Sports Illustrated (April 7, 1980)

by Flying Polamalus on Sep 8, 2011 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Belichick has whiffed on recent first rounders and hes a god genius deity man. Merriweather, nice one bossman.

by klompus on Sep 8, 2011 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

the difference you speak of is

Big Ben…..Sometimes I think people have forgotten all the frustrations we had with the previous QB’s in the times between Terry Bradshaw and Ben Roethlisberger. A lot of those years we had really good, really talented teams but a sub par QB. I for one haven’t forgotten and I am still very grateful for having a Franchise Championship Caliber QB!

by steeler fever on Sep 8, 2011 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

+7

"The standard is the standard" - Mike Tomlin

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Sep 8, 2011 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

A Quarterback, Does Make the Difference

I agree. I agured in bars for much of the 1990’s defending Neil O’Donnell and Kordell Stewart.

My argument was that you didn’t need a great QB to win the Super Bowl, you just needed a good one. As proof I cited Jim Plunket, Jim McMahon, Mark Rypien, and Jeff Hosteler. Going into the first decade of the 00’s, I added Trent Dilffer and Brad Johnson to the mix.

But when you have a franchise QB that makes it SOOOO much easier. And I’d even wager that with the way the NFL has tilted the game to favor passing, having a stud QB might be a requirement.

by Hombre de Acero on Sep 8, 2011 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Tomlin to Cowher = Apples to Oranges

The design of the offense, the coaching of Sean Kugler and the guy we have under center all combine to diminish the need for an outstanding O-line. Another good example was Denver from about 5-8 years ago. They had an undersized line with no real stars but their scheme allowed them to open some pretty good holes and keep their QBs mostly upright.

When you have lesser talent, you are constantly looking for upgrades regardless of the position. Bill Cowher had himself a pretty dadgum god line, particularly on the interior, with Hartings and Faneca. Add in Jerome Bettis and our running game was a bruising inside scheme. Now, we have smaller runners and, despite the presence of Pouncey, a less-talented unit, now we have to find a way to work with that.

Sure, we had chances to draft O-linement, including possibly trading up to get Mike Pouncey this year, or any number of guys since Tomlin’s first draft, but think of the necessary talent that has been added in those drafts, particularly in the first three rounds: Timmons, Woodley, Mendenhall, Hood, Wallace, Pouncey, Worilds, Sanders, Heyward, Gilbert and Curtis Brown (we can all agree that we really blew a few choices, like Limas Sweed and Bruce Davis, but that’s on Colbert as much as it is Tomlin). That’s five current starters (almost a quarter of the entire starting lineup), four nearly guaranteed future starters (Hood, Sanders, Heyward and Gilbert) and two guys with high starting potential (Brown and Worilds). That’s talent I don’t think I would have traded for anything else that was available at the time in hindsight.

Mike Tomlin has already achieved the same Super Bowl record as Cowher in less than a third of the amount of time. Yes, he was given a better base to work with than Cowher had when he first arrived, but I can name you some coaches who have squandered excellent talent: Marvin Lewis, Wade Philips (several times), Mora, Jr….the list goes on. It’s what you do with what you’ve got that matters, because you can’t have studs at every position. I like what we have right now and I think this year looks to be one of the best offensive units this team has produced since the 70s.

But I agree that our current linemen, excluding Pouncey, need to be watching their backs, because the next guy who can do the same thing for less really IS right around the corner. But to compare the approaches of Tomlin and Cowher may not be entirely fair.

Great read though! Just wanted to share my thoughts.

by Mike Frazer on Sep 8, 2011 7:51 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Another thought...

Our biggest strength on offense is our vertical passing game. With Ben under center and the receivers we have, that looks to only get better. And when a defense’s biggest worry is being able to cover all that speed, they are far less likely to blitz heavily or load the box. They will focus less on attacking our weakness and more on covering their own.

Again, the scheme Tomlin and Arians employ on offense is diminishing the need for a top-flight line because defenses have far more to think about than getting to a quarterback who mostly refuses to be taken down anyway.

by Mike Frazer on Sep 8, 2011 8:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

Good points Mike

"The standard is the standard" - Mike Tomlin

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Sep 8, 2011 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

Excellent Comments

I agree, Tomlin and Cowher are two different animals.

And I agree that Tomlin had more talent to work with than Cowher (although Cowher had more talent in 1992 than was recognized by anyone else — except for perhaps himself.)

And I too agree that simply being handed the keys to a Super Bowl team is no assurance that a coach will succeed. I wrote a long piece about this when it looked like Tomlin was not going to get extended last year, anyone interested can read the post here, but the long and the short of it is for every Mike Tomlin, Barry Switzer and George Siefert there is a Richie Pettiebone and Ray Handly.

About the draft I agree — perhaps one of the reasons why guys like Stephens, Wiggins, and Conrad failed was because the Cowher-Donahoe reached when they picked them.

by Hombre de Acero on Sep 8, 2011 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

^This

Great stuff, Mike!

"If you're not getting better, I don't care what business you're in, you're a dead man. I try to look critically at the mistakes that I make and try to learn from them, like our team does." - Mike Tomlin

by Rebecca Rollett on Sep 8, 2011 8:50 AM EDT reply actions  

Great Post - IMO it all starts in the trenches

Yes you can get a diamond in the rough and pick up a star in the 4th round or later. Look at Willie Colon, Aaron Smith, Bret Keisel, but sometimes you need to make a solid pick in the early rounds to win the battle of the trenches. The misses have been too many to count in recent years.

In the last 3 years we have done that with Ziggy, Pouncey, Heyward, and Gilbert. Trai was a reach in the 3rd round and I have been proven right. He is an adequate backup. But a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round pick should be starters, not backups.

We made it to 3 Super Bowls with smoke and mirrors. 2 inspite of a terrible OL coach and 1 with a rising star.

When you look at our OL for 2011 and beyond, I have to smile. We have a great OL coach (Kugler), a future perenial all-pro center (Pouncey), a well above average to great RT (Colon) , a LT who shows promise as a rookie (Gilbert). But the guard positions are week. Kemo is servicable, but has mjor knee issues that will limit him in the future and a placeholder at RG. We will need to draft a guard early next year as either the replacement at either right or left guard depending on which is a bigger issue. At hat point we will have one of the best OL in the league to go with some high octane weapons and an awsome defense.

by Steeler Nation VA on Sep 8, 2011 9:28 AM EDT reply actions  

Measure the results & not the opinions of the past.

We made it to 3 Super Bowls with smoke and mirrors. 2 inspite of a terrible OL coach….

I understand exactly and tend to agree until I look at the results. Then the conundrum: Were we lucky or perhaps trenches are not as important as have been encouraged to believe. Football is too dynamic. Pass rush productivity influences coverage and the other way around. Running productivity success influences passing and the other way around. Even offensive productivity influences defense and the other way around. As unconventional as the thought is; Wide receiver productivity influences OL and the other way around and just maybe the influence is greater than we realize.

Which leads me to posit an organizational OL strategy to answer this question from the post.
Do the Steelers have a coherent offensive line strategy unduly ignored here?
 
I posit that cohesion even likeability among the individuals playing OL has become just as important as skill and salary.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."
--Aristotle

by steelerstyle on Sep 8, 2011 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

Your last point - Agreed - Then why did Colbert...

…not trade up for Mike P, if that is the underlying theory? I won’t repeat what’s been said ad nauseam by proponents at DraftMikeP.com, present company included, but cohesion, likeability, future re-signability, heck, even twin ESP have all been argued in favour of following that strategy.

Good posit, but not borne out by the facts of this year’s draft strategy.

P.S. I’m not reopening the Cameron Heyward discussion, I like the pick, BTW.

"You have two hemispheres in your brain - a left and a right side. The left side controls the right side of your body and right controls the left half. It's a fact. Therefore, left-handers are the only people in their right minds."

Bill "Spaceman" Lee
Source: Sports Illustrated (April 7, 1980)

by Flying Polamalus on Sep 8, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

I can not come up

with any facts to support or disprove the thesis about cohesion and likeability > skill or salary. There are so many factors involved in the draft that I donot accept what we did or did not do to get Mike P as related to the thesis.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."
--Aristotle

by steelerstyle on Sep 9, 2011 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think it is a bit easier to find the next mike Wallace

than it is to find the next Steve Huchinson – that is part of the issue.

"The standard is the standard" - Mike Tomlin

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Sep 8, 2011 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Of all positions, OG is now the least valuable.

In times past, the OGs were the leaders of the run game. They took out the LBs and corners, a la the Packers sweep game of the 50s and early 60s. They are (or should still be) the leaders in the run game, but the run has become devalued to enhance scoring and satisfy the “fans” who don’t recognize anything but the 60+ yd TD pass as an exciting event.

Yeah, I’m a football curmudgeon.

My heros have always been Steelers...

by wozzle on Sep 8, 2011 9:45 AM EDT reply actions  

"Consistent Offensive Line Strategy Eludes Steelers - But Does It Matter? "

That statement, including the question mark, pretty much sums up the Steelers offense. On one hand, of course it matters. Our running game has been incredibly inconsistent since 2005-ish, especially against 4-3 teams, and is part of the reason Ben takes so many hits. Another reason Ben takes so many hits is because the interior OL has been awful at pass protection until last year, and now we have the lucrative choice of 2 different backups as our starting LT. If we were actively acquiring top shelf talent (which we finally did last year in Pouncey) and developing average talent from the mid to late rounds (still waiting for this one), our offense could be a lot more consistent than they are. And just when things were looking more stable, we lost our 2 OT’s from last year and have a ? at guard.

On the other hand, getting that top shelf talent on the OL comes at the expense of other areas of the roster. I wanted us to take an OT in 2007, but instead we got half of our LB corp for the next decade. I liked the Hood and Mendenhall picks, even though neither looks like a Pro Bowler at this point. I don’t think skimping on OL is some moneyball grand exploitation of a market inefficiency as much as a realization that getting first rate talent at LB is better than second rate talent at OL, and that’s the choice we’ve had in several drafts. Also, getting good position coaches and developing young players isn’t a simple process. It’s looking like Kugler is a pretty good coach there finally, so maybe him and Pouncey can start turning the page on the OL. Oh yeah, and we won 2 SB’s with a lousy OL and a lack of a running game really wasn’t the reason we lost the third.

charity standing orders

by BadMaafala on Sep 8, 2011 9:52 AM EDT reply actions  

Very True on second-rate Talent at OT

Just did a quick search of the 15 Tackles that received votes in the ESPN rankings . Basically, you 7 guys that were high first-rounders (and also tend to populate the upper echelon): Thomas, Long, Clady, Gross, Ferguson, Okung, and Backus. You then have 5 that were drafted around 40-50 in the 2nd round: Roos, McNeill, Light, Whitworth, and Clifton (some have mentioned Saffold as well). You have one 4th rounder: Doug Free. And two UDFAs: Donald Penn and Jason Peters.

Of further interest might be the year drafted: 2000 (Clifton), 2001 (Backus and Light), 2003 (Gross), 2005 (Roos), 2006 (Ferguson, McNeill, and Whitworth), 2007(Thomas and Free), 2008 (Long and Clady), 2010 (Okung). Jason Peters was UDFA is 2004 and Donald Penn in 2006.

Of course, a better study would look at the amount of tackles chosen relative to other positions, overall order and what not. Generally, the majority of that list is populated with guys that were considered the consensus best at their position in a given year. Possibly, this is also why there is usually only one (Again would need to check overall numbers drafted). Moreover, instead of chasing the position, it seems better to focus on getting top-tier talent at other positions.

I do not recall every story, but Free, Penn, and Roos were small-college types. Jason Peters is a converted TE. Marcus McNeill’s talent was recognized but he fell due to fear over a severe spinal malady. That leaves Light, Clifton, and Whitworth- each of which was the fifth tackle taken in their respective year, and each came from big programs (Purdue, Tennessee, and LSU, respectively).

What does this all mean? It seems, unless you are set to take that top guy, do not chase the position, and instead try to find guys with experience at the major-collegiate level. Marcus Gilbert, incidentally, seems to fit that bill. And though positions will change, he was taken 9th overall across all tackles in his draft class.

"It's football the way it's meant to be played. That's who Pittsburgh is, and that's who Pittsburgh has always been."

-- so says Rex Ryan.

by sctx109 on Sep 8, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

Good conclusions

I think Starks is a good example of what to shoot for if you can’t get Orlando Pace. He was a 3rd rounder and didn’t blow you away in any particular area (other than his size). He was pretty rough as a rookie, was a decent RT for a while, although he never seemed able to blow open holes very well. He got moved over to the left side, at which point I think the fallacy that you need a good LT was exposed. He was remarkably fine there. His better attributes (length, intelligence) benefited from the move, while his run blocking really became an asset against the weak side of the defense.

You want to find the Michael Roos’s of the world in the second round that can both maul and consistently stop the pass rush, but you really can (and probably should) get by without trading up to the top half of the 1st.

charity standing orders

by BadMaafala on Sep 8, 2011 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Starks was ok untill he blew up to 400 lb this off season

We do not need to draft OL in the top 5 picks to get a solid player. We do not need all pro’s at every position, but better talent than what we have seen in recent years with a few good to great players as anchors for the OL. I think we have the anchors.

by Steeler Nation VA on Sep 8, 2011 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

It may not have been THE reason, but it would not have hurt either

I don’t recall the TOP figures from the last Super Bowl, but a paltry 14 carries by Mendenhall can’t have helped an already hurt secondary by extending the Packer’s Flying Circus time on the field.

Also, while I agree that the jury’s still out on Hood, but Rashard could easily have made the Pro Bowl last year; only exceptional seasons by four other AFC rushers kept him out.

"You have two hemispheres in your brain - a left and a right side. The left side controls the right side of your body and right controls the left half. It's a fact. Therefore, left-handers are the only people in their right minds."

Bill "Spaceman" Lee
Source: Sports Illustrated (April 7, 1980)

by Flying Polamalus on Sep 8, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

We were gutting them early in the game for 5.5 ypc on the ground but didn’t stick with it because we were down. The holes were there. We just kept passing against a very good secondary. We won the previous 2 SB’s in spite of our OL. We lost this last one in spite of our OL.

only exceptional seasons by four other AFC rushers kept him out

That’s the problem. Mendenhall is a good back, but not an exceptional one. Mendenhall was 7th in the league in rushing yards, but with only 3.9 ypc. It’s not necessarily his fault, but he also had very few receiving yards compared to most top shelf backs. Advanced metrics also hate him. He’s not a Pro Bowler.

charity standing orders

by BadMaafala on Sep 8, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed for the most part...

But I think your point about receiving yards speaks to the fact that they need to let him catch some passes; he’s been reasonably effective doing it, and a little more experience, combined with the versatility it adds to the single back set, could make it an excellent change of pace for 6-10 yards at a chunk.

"Football combines the two worst things about America: It is violence punctuated by committee meetings" -George Will

by lottwasgangsta on Sep 8, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

The only position that really bothers me is left tackle

I’m a contrarian by nature, so when every gasbag expert talks about how critical the left tackle is, my knee jerk reaction is that it can’t be that big of a deal. But logically, from a pass protection standpoint, it is impossible to conclude otherwise. I’ve been a fan of the Steelers going back to when I was a kid watching the back 1/2 of the 70’s dynasty. I started really paying attention to the draft in Noll’s last year. And I can name a first rounder at every position on the OL since ’92:

LG – Faneca
C – Pouncey
RG – Simmons
RT – Searcy/Stephens

Except left tackle. I can’t reconcile that a first rounder has been merited at almost every other regular position in that time (WR x 4, RB x 1, QB x 1, TE x 2, DL x 3, LB x 1, CB x 2, S x1) but not left tackle. The only position you could say hasn’t been addressed with a first round pick is either fullback (which doesn’t really exist anymore) and free safety. Moreover, before Jonathon Scott, the only other player to start at this critical position that wasn’t a draft pick was Wolford who was brought here as a guard and only played there because the regular (can’t recall who that was) was injured.

On the flip side of the argument, if you consider OLB to be a separate position and that Timmons was always naturally an ILB, the most critical position on defense in a 3-4 hasn’t had a player selected in the first round since the Huey Richardson disaster in ‘91. Yet the defense has not only gotten by, but has been dominant and has continually had among the finest players in the league at the position. As much as I recognize that, clearly that success has been a reason to continue along that path. At left tackle, it’s been at best average since Marvel Smith’s neck issues first popped up.

by pghnorthside on Sep 8, 2011 11:54 AM EDT reply actions  

Agreed

I guess what I was trying to say earlier is that, unless you are in the top 10-12 picks, it seems highly unlikely you get one of those guys that people want. Maybe this is a result of the perceived importance of the position. Yet, whenever the Steelers are at the top of the draft, it then becomes a choice of which ‘premium’ position to take- LT, CB, QB, or (at least in the Cowher years) WR.

We are there rarely, and we chose QB and WR on a couple of occasions. It seems given the contract parameters of our team, they seem to think that the money saved at CB and LT (by avoiding the creme de la creme at the position) reap more benefits by getting the best at other positions- unique talent such as Troy or Pouncey or Ben that gives us something no other team has, and thus makes us even harder to prepare for.

"It's football the way it's meant to be played. That's who Pittsburgh is, and that's who Pittsburgh has always been."

-- so says Rex Ryan.

by sctx109 on Sep 8, 2011 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Your point is valid

It just seems silly to have a Pro Bowl quarterback, and not find a way to get him consistently above-average blindside protection.

Pouncey was a great example of drafting for both need AND value; I’m not saying the team should deviate from their general plan, but they should do everything within their principles to try to upgrade their left tackle. Doesn’t have to be great, but Scott and Gilbert both seem like ill-fits for the long run.

"Football combines the two worst things about America: It is violence punctuated by committee meetings" -George Will

by lottwasgangsta on Sep 8, 2011 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

True, but at what cost

If it is there, then fine. If not, then you try to throw quantity at the problem, and scheme the issue away. Maybe use more double teams and utilize a strong blocking TE on that side, which they tend to do with Heath Miller- another of those first rounders that could have been used on an iffy tackle prospect.

"It's football the way it's meant to be played. That's who Pittsburgh is, and that's who Pittsburgh has always been."

-- so says Rex Ryan.

by sctx109 on Sep 8, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

We agree more than we disagree

And you make a good point, that it’s a little silly to utilize Miller as a blocker when he is such an excellent receiver.

Mostly, I remain scratching my head at how good they’ve been with such a questionable line.

"Football combines the two worst things about America: It is violence punctuated by committee meetings" -George Will

by lottwasgangsta on Sep 8, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

nasty and mean

The line’s getting better. Pouncy is a beast and Kemo, penalties aside, is ferocious. I just look at Kemo and crap my pants! Legursky, well, he’s small, but he’s smart, and that’s important when facing today’s complicated defensive schemes. Having said all this, I liked the article. Viva hombre de acero.

by Brett Cottrell on Sep 8, 2011 12:10 PM EDT reply actions  

Agree

But you just described the interior of the line. It’s the tackles, specifically the left one, that could use some upgrading.

As to crapping your pants on Kemo, I support your enthusiasm, but probably would require you to wear diapers if we were watching the game at my house. :)

"Football combines the two worst things about America: It is violence punctuated by committee meetings" -George Will

by lottwasgangsta on Sep 8, 2011 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

I still say big boy needs a haircut...

at least grow in the sides, the SoMullet is terrible…

"The standard is the standard" - Mike Tomlin

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Sep 8, 2011 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

True

But as we’ve discussed, before the hair changes, we need to locate someone brave enough to tell him to his face it’s awful; maybe Ngata would be willing to convey the message, just to look out for his fellow Pacific Islander?

Hell, Troy could probably handle it, and THEN he could tell him about the 7 great things Head and Shoulders does…

"Football combines the two worst things about America: It is violence punctuated by committee meetings" -George Will

by lottwasgangsta on Sep 8, 2011 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

LMMFAO!!!

7 Great things, Priceless!!!

"The standard is the standard" - Mike Tomlin

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Sep 8, 2011 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's for more than just dandruff

And, because football season is starting…the most wonderfully apt product endorsement in NFL history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqkgRkHY_FU&feature=relmfu

"Football combines the two worst things about America: It is violence punctuated by committee meetings" -George Will

by lottwasgangsta on Sep 8, 2011 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Rec'd for Scuz

"The standard is the standard" - Mike Tomlin

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Sep 8, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Legursky isn't small, he's just short ...

Big Snack said if he was 2 or 3 inches taller, he’d be in the Pro Bowl. I was at that first Ravens-Steelers game when he started at RG and he held his own that game and the OL as a whole played pretty well. I think this line has the potential to be a lot better than the previous couple of years with Colon, Pouncey in his 2nd year and Legursky. It’s definitely a higher IQ line with Pouncey and Legursky both starting. Plus Ben has more weapons this year than he’s ever had at his disposal. Should be fun.

by datruth4life2.0 on Sep 8, 2011 2:57 PM EDT reply actions  

Legursky measured 6'3, 312 lbs. at his pro day three years ago ...

How did he shrink to 6’1’’? I’m with Tomlin. If the guy can get it done, then he can get it done. He’s an upgrade at RG to me.

by datruth4life2.0 on Sep 8, 2011 3:05 PM EDT reply actions  

As important as top OL guys have become in today's game,

It’s pretty tough to keep an elite-level OL together without busting the bank. I didn’t think our OL was too bad last year. But we’ve got the huge advantage of #7 at QB; so what might be a problem for other teams isn’t too much of an issue for the Steelers. And I see this line getting better as the season goes on.

by Billy52 on Sep 8, 2011 6:34 PM EDT reply actions  

As weird as this seems, I don't think many offensive lines can be as poor as the '08 unit, and we all know how that year turned out.

I’m not sure if they have a plan for the line or not. But maybe they’re just concentrating on one position at a time. In ‘07, they addressed the linebackers. In ’08, they went after a high-end running back. And in the last three drafts, they’ve concentrated on their defensive and offensive line units with a total of four players picked at those positions in the first or second round.

by Anthony Defeo on Sep 9, 2011 8:25 PM EDT reply actions  


User Tools

Welcome to BTSC, a blog dedicated to the SIX-time world champion Steelers.

"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."

Art Rooney Jr.

"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Your all time Steeler regret?
5467103_small
Hines Ward: a different look part 1. Hines vs. the big boys.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Isaac Redman 2012: Should we temper our expectations?
Photo_small
Worry Warts
6-trophies_small
The Saint Will Be The Starter for 2012 - The Whole Season.
Trophies_small
Why Is Rashard Mendenhall Still On This Roster?
2009-week6_1440x900_benroethlisberger_small
Pads - To wear or not to wear
Small
53 Man Roster (Way too early edition)
Small
WHEN DO TICKETS GO ON SALE?
Small
Submitted for your approval: Steeler names for this year's pledge class
Small
The biggest offseason ever

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Terrible Towel Talk

Listen to internet radio with Michael Bean on Blog Talk Radio


Site Founder & Editor

Imag0299_small Michael Bean

Steelers Historian

Steeler_small maryrose

Bison_small Neal Coolong

Contributing Authors

Small Ivan Cole (RickVa)

Franco72_small 5020

Btsc_head_shot_small Rebecca Rollett

Small big_jay71

Hines_small John Stephens

178896_499126548441_596563441_5939410_7960015_n_small Anthony Defeo