Day
one:
A couple of years ago, this site was affiliated with the Insiders network.� Early in that (regrettable) period, I was out country, came back, cobbled up a few articles and then quit, reasoning that I for damn sure was no insider, and (for damn sure) had no wish to be.� Well, certainly yesterday�s moves by the Steeler FO fully demonstrated that fact; there�s pipeline zero from here to the interior of Cowbert Court.�
Surprising here, the Steelers drafted an upside QB, after passing on the same kind prospect last winter, and in the last draft too; they drafted a CB who generally has gotten good reviews despite much evidence to the contrary and they drafted exactly the kind of RT who would have been available a round or two later, had they not burned that pick previously.� In a deep draft, they traded up; purporting a BPA mode, they really drafted need by need.� On the upside, they may have gotten value with each pick; on the downside, looking over a broader span, they have failed to optimize many opportunities to build their team.� In short, the best that can be said is that the FO got some parts; whether those amount to any coherent whole remains to be seen.� Turning to the picks:
1.11:� Ben
Roethlisberger, QB.�
Roethlisberger has all the tools; there is no question that he�s as good a prospect as, say, Byron Leftwich (last year�s gigantic MAC QB).� Leftwich was taken 1.07; therefore, Roethlisberger is value at 1.11.� No one purports that Tommy Maddox is the long-term answer at the position.� However, he has been effective at times and there�s reason to believe that, as a matter of temperament, he will be a willing and effective mentor.� On balance, the Steelers have transformed a questionable position to one that (downstream) should be very strong indeed.� Tommy (or Charlie Batch) will play next year although given the state of the O-line, either will get the sense that he�s the featured player in Mel Gibson�s The Passion, (Reloaded).� The Steelers probably will burn their vets to insure their future at the spot, following, say, the Bengals� mode in sitting Palmer for a year behind Kitna.� Better that than Houston, a team that, in 2003, sent David Carr out to get beat down behind a highly suspect O-front.���
The mystery remains why the Steelers did not move on Drew Henson this past winter, or even in last spring�s draft with, say, the pick they used on Brian St. Pierre.� If it�s fair to say that Roethlisberger is an equivalent prospect to Leftwich, it is equally so to include Henson, a player that at one time was regarded as a top 5 talent.� Like Roethlisberger, Henson has all the tools in the world; like Roethlisberger, Henson has limited experience at the position; unlike Roethlisberger, Henson demonstrated some substantial learning ability in those (much maligned) Wonderlic tests.� At worst, the Steelers could have had Henson for a 2005 R3 (as Dallas accomplished); instead, well, they did what they did.� Now, here�s the equation, or multiple choice:
* Roethlisberger + that 2005 R3
ultimately will be (better than, the same as, far less effectual) than Henson
+ any single player taken in 2004 from 1.12 forward.�
Put it another way:� had the FO shown any signs of life last winter, the Steelers could have had Henson and, say, Will Smith or Tommy Harris.� They didn�t and so they don�t.� Considered in isolation, the Roethlisberger pick is worth an �A:� grade, no doubt but in the broader perspective, not so much.� Unfortunately, that is a theme that will reoccur as:
2.38:� Ricardo
Colclough, CB.
Like Roethlisberger, Colclough is a player who dominated at what is (broadly) described as a lower level of competition.� I�m not sure that applies to the MAC, a conference whose members beat up on the Pitts, Penn States and Northwesterns of the world but certainly, it applies to tiny Tusculum.� Then too, unlike Roethlisberger, who is all about the measurables, Colclough comes up short in that department.� We�ve been over this:� he�s not very big, not very fast, not very agile, not very strong and, off that Wonderlic, not real bright.� To me, he was no better than 9th at the position but, as was obvious from that pre-draft PC, Kevin Colbert did not share that assessment.� It was absolutely clear that the PS FO was enamored with this player, as were many well-connected draft gurus.�
For example, both Rich Gosselin and Len Pasquarelli (speaking for Scouts, Inc) rated Colclough 5th of all CB.� Well, that could be; certainly I�d rate him ahead of Keiwan Ratliff and Shawntae Spencer, the other two CB taken in R2.� Like Colclough, Ratliff made some plays last year; however, his measurables were even worse.� In contrast, Spencer moved up on the strength of his WO but he played very poorly last season.
That�s not the point though, this is: CB did not present value at this spot.� Sometime ago, I�d suggested that there was little enough difference between CB #6 and CB #9 or #10, that Poole, Strait and LeSueur would drop, as may Joey Thomas, and so on.� Time will tell on the first but the drops did eventuate.� Still, accepting conventional wisdom, that Colclough is top 5 in this (sorry) class of CB; the same sources would have it that others were better value at the spot especially:
|
|
Gosselin�s
top 100 |
ESPN
top 65 |
Total |
|
Justin
Smiley, IOL |
28 |
26 |
54 |
|
Sean
Jones, FS |
43 |
27 |
70 |
|
Ricardo
Colclough, CB |
41 |
39 |
80 |
Jake Grove, IOL |
39 |
41 |
80 |
|
Greg
Jones, RB |
42 |
49 |
91 |
|
Jacob
Rogers |
56 |
38 |
94 |
|
Keiwan
Ratliff |
52 |
NR |
- |
|
Shawntae
Spencer |
45 |
NR |
- |
|
Derrick
Strait |
66 |
61 |
127 |
As projected here long ago, Sean Jones presented best value of all DB; as noted here long ago, the dominant value cluster was at IOL.� It�s fair to say that Colclough represented value at the spot but it must be acknowledged that he was neither BPA nor, considering the state of the Steeler O-line, BPF (best possible fit).� Far worse, the PS burned a pick, 4.107, to move up for this player.� Hilariously, the Steelers did this deal with Indy, a team several had projected as drafting Colclough at 1.29.�
Maybe, the Steelers did get value at one position of need.� However, they did not get the player that was projected as best on the board; that would be Smiley.� By all consensus, they didn�t get the best DB either.� Factor that with the inevitable R3 RT, nothing in R4 and, well, another instance where the sum is likely to fall short of the part(s).�� Call it what you will, zip synergy or usurious opportunity costs, this was, and remains, the PS mode.
3.76:� Max Starks,
RT
Well, evidently the Steelers have made their decision on what kind of O-line they want.� Previously, a trap/pull team, it�s apparent that the PS have adopted the <wall of living meat> mode perfected by, say, the Vikings.� IMO, Starks may have been a good R4 pickup but as noted above that train left the station.� Still, there is little to differentiate this player from Nate Dorsey or Brian Rimpf, although Kelly Butler stands apart from all (both as to his movement skills and impulse control).� All of those players remain; as likely as not, Starks would have been on at 4.107 too.
On the plus side, Starks performed well at a big school program and he�s a smart guy.� Further, he�s a high character type too as, per nfl.com, he�s involved in considerable community work, a valued attribute here.� He�s not a great athletic prospect but he�s no inconsequential slug (Jamain Stephens) either.� He will be a good teammate; he will be an upgrade over Rossham in pass protection but I see little cause to believe he�ll be considerably better in the run game.� He has some pad level issues; he�s a waist bender; he�s not real agile or quick.� The Steelers couldn�t run right last year; I don�t know that will improve much in 2004.��
Summary:�
Overarching, the question of opportunity costs: burning their R4 pick in R2, the Steelers have no shot at those RT listed above.� Also, they have no opportunity for those raw DT previously projected here as first day value on Day 2; (sure), the specifics were wrong then but the fact is that Matthias Askew and Isaac Sopoaga are on the board, if not those dualing Ducks, Olshansky and Siavii.�� RB like Michael Turner remain.� There was a run on LB in R3 suggesting further depletion by the time the Steelers pick again at 5.145.� Piece by piece, bit by bit maybe the PS did okay yesterday but (as usual) eschewing that big picture, they fell (far) short.
In R3, the value was at CB with Derrick Strait, Jeremy LeSueur or the Eagles new Bobby Taylor, Matt Ware.� Just as there figured to be little drop from R2 to R3 at CB, so to with R3 to R4 at OT.� Since something of the sort was projected here previously, it�s not hindsight to suggest this:
1.11:� � Roethlisberger
2.45:� � Smiley or Grove
3.76:� � Strait, LeSueur or Ware
4.107: RT of choice. (Conceivably, BPA DT, RB or LB with RT R5 from that deep pool of slow big guys).
Could be better, could be worse; time will tell.� As for Day two, well, I�ve given some views in prior articles and will let those stand.�