@thenew23 said:

LOL Intelligent?... And you dont know what I'm talking about.. Got it...

Lose Hoyer.....replaced by Josh McCown.....probably a wash imo (or a slight minus in yours?)

Losing Thigpen....replaced by Thad Lewis.....probably a slight plus

Lose Skrine....replaced by Tramon Williams....all around considered a big plus

Probably losing Rubin.....replaced by Starks....considered a slight plus

Probably losing Austin Miles.....replaced by Dwayne Bowe.....considered a plus

Probably losing Sione Fua....no direct replacement....But others on roster plus rookies can more than make up for 3rd stringer..wash

Lost Paul McQuistan....no direct replacement....but same as above....wash

Lost Jim Leonhard...no direct replacement....but also others on roster can replace talent....but veteran leadership loss means a slight minus here.

Lost Jordan Cameron.....no replacement yet. Losing out on Clay means this is a large negative so far.

Lost Jabaal Sheard....no replacement yet. Large negative so far.

Signed Hartline....he is not directly replacing anyone (unless you count him and not Bowe as the replacement for Austin). So no matter, losing one veteran WR and replacing him with 2, both of whom may be considered better than him is a big plus. Though, since Hartline is a possession receiver, perhaps he can fill some of Cameron's shoes.

Overall assessment:

Offensive Skill positions....QB/WR/TE....call it about an equal deal....or slightly less....Do two WRs replace a WR and TE. Not exactly IMO. Cameron's skill not completely adequately replaced.

Offensive Line....No real loss suffered at all. Wash

Defensive Backfield...Upgraded.

Defensive Line....Slightly upgraded (I put Sheard in the LB corps)

Linebackers....Loss of Sheard, not replaced....Downgraded.

@westside-steve said:

That may be good with a truly experienced, proven HC......like Parcells was, or BB.....but not these newish HCs like Butch and Mangini.

@the-gipper said:

The fuckups with both Butch Davis and Mangini was allowing/requiring them to each be the GM as well as HC. They weren't suited for those duties or that much pressure......they should have been left to coach. That....and never having a QB.

it has always seemed to me that if there is a solid scouting team in place then the head coach should have an inside track on the general manager job. He should have a damn good idea of what players he wants to work with.

WSS

@clevfan4life said:

The fuckups with both Butch Davis and Mangini was allowing/requiring them to each be the GM as well as HC. They weren't suited for those duties or that much pressure......they should have been left to coach. That....and never having a QB.

@nickers said:

what the hell are you talking about? This was a somewhat intelligent conversation until you showed up...

@nickers said:

But...there's only so much coaches can teach. Reason why the Pgh defense was so good as long as it was wasn't all because of Lebeau. Yes he masterminded the scheme, but the field knowledge that was passed on from the vets. I'm ok with signing vets as long as they have a few years left in the tank. Wilfork would have been a great sign for us. Here he wouldn't have had the same work load he had in NE. And of course there's the SB"s he's won.

@mudfly said:

After they signed Starks and extended Hughes, I almost guarantee they plan to use Hughes in the middle. He and Taylor are both big enough to play the NT spot, so maybe all of us raving about Shelton and Brown in the draft are way off... Like you've said, it's hard to say with the multiple fronts Pettine and O'neil like to use. They do need to shore up that run D first before getting too pass-rush happy IMHO

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

It seems to all make sense.....as Pettine pretty much preaches multiple and confusing fronts with flex players that can move around(a lot).....which is why it's confounding me trying to predict "who" or what type of player they covet most....or if they perceive their needs the same as we do....

The Kuechley reference rings true, cause the one thing I really think is that Pettine is on a mission for football players(not body types or potential)...

So, I think he'd just take the best D player and fit him in.....but it could be a Beasley type....a Shelton type....or a Dupree type...

@mudfly said:

losing 10-15 lbs and moving outside might be just what he needs. I've been saying for awhile that he's our most technically gifted pass rusher. I wish Kruger would develop some of the hand skills that armonty has....if Kruger could do that he'd be able to get around the edge way more proficiently.

@mudfly said:

@mudfly said:

Gotta say thats not one I had never considered....though he is Krugerish in size....dont have a clue how he'd do....

Though I think we have a lot of guys who could play a lot of places in Pettines system and he's game to put em there....I never know what they're thinking...

@mudfly said:

yeah, it's along the same lines as what I was yakking about above....that me thinks they're gonna grab a DE to be the next OLB...

Just never thought of Bryant....it will be interesting to see what they do(draft wise)....heck, they could move Taylor or Hughes back to nose and then everything changes....again.....oy

I was catching up on this thread and bookmarking the ones I wanted to reply to...and they all turned out to be you, Mud.

I think the Starks acquisition frees things up along the line. Starks can play 3-tech or 5-tech. He can play 3-4 NT, he can play 4-3 DE. He's versatile enough and has had experience in most positions along the defensive line to where we might be able to push Bryant to OLB, or Taylor to NT, or Kruger to DE on any given play.

As it stands right now, I foresee us having multiple different packages this season. We could have a package with Starks, Taylor and Winn with their hands in the dirt, and Kruger and Bryant standing up. Hell, we could have a package with Kruger, Mingo, Bryant, Robertson and Dansby all standing up. (Bring back that UFO defense)

I like the thought of adding a pure pass rusher in the draft, but I think we enough versatility and talent right now to easily go into the season with. What I would really love to see is us find either a Kuechly-esque field general at ILB or just a straight up mad dog run stuffer at ILB. One or the other would be nice.

@clevfan4life said:

yeah...he's got a lot of junk in the trunk.....sure looks bigger to me

@clevfan4life said:

If I was the coach, Beasley would be the one Im after first....

@thenew23 said:

yeah, it's along the same lines as what I was yakking about above....that me thinks they're gonna grab a DE to be the next OLB...

Just never thought of Bryant....it will be interesting to see what they do(draft wise)....heck, they could move Taylor or Hughes back to nose and then everything changes....again.....oy

@mudfly said:

Kruger - 6'4" 270lbs

Sheard - 6'3" 264lbs

Bryant - 6'4" 265lbs

No difference in size to me. If anything, Bryant is even more athletic than both of the others. Remember, Mingo is quite undersized for the position at 6'4" 240lbs. Also, Scott Solomon looked decent the last couple games and he's an OLB.

Last year, Sheard lined up close to the line of scrimmage and even in a 3-point stance much of the time. I wonder if the plan is to utilize Bryant the same way. It just makes too much sense to me...

@thenew23 said:

Gotta say thats not one I had never considered....though he is Krugerish in size....dont have a clue how he'd do....

Though I think we have a lot of guys who could play a lot of places in Pettines system and he's game to put em there....I never know what they're thinking...

Just a thought...

Zombo said:

So, keep all 7?....plus at least one draftee makes 8.....which is 2 more than we carried last year....so 2 xtra roster spots used here???

and it seems like we could be adding a third QB this year......so 1 xtra roster spot used here too..?

and we only carried 2 extra OL and (I think we could add one here).....so 1 extra spot used here too?(maybe not)

which means 3 to 4 less roster spots elsewhere.....not sure where we'd start choppin tho....(ok wr, but then where?)

@clevfan4life said:

Im curious too.....w/o filling the Sheard gap, you know someone is getting picked high.....unless they REALLY like Mingo....

But I dont see Starks changing our primary need for a NT....So, for me, it's still Shelton or Brown at the top of the list....

At OLB, I see them looking for DE's who they can convert(like Sheard). Not saying thats the plan, but you know they are considering it ....so, with the exception of beasley(who I think they'd grab) I think they'll be looking at DE's more than your traditional LB types....

My guess is they are looking to replace Sheard with a similar hydrid ....Im leaning toward picks like Alvin Dupree, Nate Orchard, Lorenzo Mauldin and Eli Harold.....with the exception of Dupree, these guys are 2nd round and later picks