Billl Posted July 19 Posted July 19 On 7/17/2025 at 8:49 PM, TheBeaneBandit said: Stupid should hurt. Eat it Steelers 😂😆🤣 Paying the best defensive player in the game is stupid? Quote
TheBeaneBandit Posted July 19 Posted July 19 39 minutes ago, Billl said: Paying the best defensive player in the game is stupid? Watt was never the best defensive player in the game😂😆🤣 2 Quote
Billl Posted July 19 Posted July 19 12 minutes ago, TheBeaneBandit said: Watt was never the best defensive player in the game😂😆🤣 He’s won Defensive Player of the Year and finished in the top 5 in voting 5 times. He also has more sacks, QB hits, and tackles for a loss than any player since he’s been in the league. Pretty stupid to pay him, though. Quote
DrBob806 Posted July 19 Posted July 19 18 hours ago, dcinmuncie said: That’s a lot of money for a guy with ONE career playoff sack in four games Weird thing is Watt gets half his sacks being basically unblocked. I can't stand him or the Steelers, but you have to admit he's been an impact player for some time. Quote
NoSaint Posted July 19 Posted July 19 5 hours ago, BarleyNY said: Obviously the Bills, but many here act like the Steelers have that choice. Or that they shouldn’t extend one of the best defensive players in the league because they don’t have a Josh Allen level QB. It’s ridiculous. I don’t think it’ll work out for the Steelers either, but they’re trying and giving themselves a chance to do well this season. What would you have them do? Simply tank season after season until they can draft a FQB? How’s that been working for the Browns? if you don’t think it’ll work out, I think there’s something to be said for skipping Rodgers, trading watt for a bounty and committing to move up aggressively to get your guy as a bills fan, we watched this play out for 20 years. In my opinion I’d rather keep taking real swings than chasing maybe getting a wild card I don’t look to the browns as being a data point any strategy being sound/unsound really 2 Quote
4BillsintheBurgh Posted July 19 Posted July 19 6 minutes ago, NoSaint said: if you don’t think it’ll work out, I think there’s something to be said for skipping Rodgers, trading watt for a bounty and committing to move up aggressively to get your guy as a bills fan, we watched this play out for 20 years. In my opinion I’d rather keep taking real swings than chasing maybe getting a wild card I don’t look to the browns as being a data point any strategy being sound/unsound really I agree with you Saint. I think this contract will fit with a rookie qb contract and I assume the steelers have determined they have a good chance to get a decent rookie next year. I will say the Khan/Tomlin regime seems to be closer to managing the team via a Madden game mindset than I've ever seen from the steelers. I think ownership is the actual issue though and it will be interesting to see how the fan base reacts if the next two-three years are bad. Quote
TheBeaneBandit Posted July 19 Posted July 19 2 hours ago, Billl said: He’s won Defensive Player of the Year and finished in the top 5 in voting 5 times. He also has more sacks, QB hits, and tackles for a loss than any player since he’s been in the league. Pretty stupid to pay him, though. Right now yes. 2 or more years ago of course. Quote
3rdand12 Posted July 19 Posted July 19 46 minutes ago, TheBeaneBandit said: Right now yes. 2 or more years ago of course. They really had no choice. He's a Team leader and maybe their best player. Perhaps they should have gotten ahead of this payday as you mentioned. Someone was going to pay him for sure. The League thinks he a game changer or Force player Quote
BarleyNY Posted July 19 Posted July 19 1 hour ago, NoSaint said: if you don’t think it’ll work out, I think there’s something to be said for skipping Rodgers, trading watt for a bounty and committing to move up aggressively to get your guy as a bills fan, we watched this play out for 20 years. In my opinion I’d rather keep taking real swings than chasing maybe getting a wild card I don’t look to the browns as being a data point any strategy being sound/unsound really Sure. Tanking is a reasonable strategy. But tanking is by no means foolproof and it does them no good in the near term - and they have some talent. I can see why they believe that Rodgers can take them from a team that loses in the WC every season to one that can win one or more playoff games. Their strategy isn’t much different than the one with which the Manning QBed Broncos won a SB. HOF QB at the end of their career, stud Edge player, etc., etc. While I don’t think it is likely to work for a variety of reasons, I don’t blame them for taking a shot. They can always tank next offseason if they want to. 1 Quote
HardyBoy Posted July 19 Posted July 19 8 hours ago, BarleyNY said: they are both meaningful, though I’d also argue that the fully guaranteed money total is more meaningful. the combination of AAV and fully guaranteed money paints a clear picture of the contract. IIRC you suggested that guaranteed money per year should have been the figure reported instead of AAV. that is not meaningful at all. Let's say you have a two year contract for $100m with a $20m guarentee...first year salary is $20m, second year salary is $80m...saying that contract has a $50m AAV instead of a $10m AAV is wildly misleading. The player will be cut or renegotiate their contract. Obviously those numbers are high for example purposes, but players rarely play out the last year of their deals, and contracts are regularly back loaded when the guarantees are gone. I stand behind my statement that AAV based on the total value of a contract, instead of the guaranteed amount is highly misleading and isn't realistic. I'd argue for a rAAV metric, (realistic AAV), where the likelihood that a player stays on the deal is calculated, based on how much guaranteed money is left as a proportion of unguarenteed salary per season. Quote
RyanC883 Posted July 20 Posted July 20 On 7/18/2025 at 5:19 PM, dcinmuncie said: That’s a lot of money for a guy with ONE career playoff sack in four games yep. Dude vanishes at the end of the season Quote
GunnerBill Posted July 20 Posted July 20 10 hours ago, BarleyNY said: Sure. Tanking is a reasonable strategy. But tanking is by no means foolproof and it does them no good in the near term - and they have some talent. I can see why they believe that Rodgers can take them from a team that loses in the WC every season to one that can win one or more playoff games. Their strategy isn’t much different than the one with which the Manning QBed Broncos won a SB. HOF QB at the end of their career, stud Edge player, etc., etc. While I don’t think it is likely to work for a variety of reasons, I don’t blame them for taking a shot. They can always tank next offseason if they want to. I wouldn't have tanked any previous year as the Steelers. I would have considered it this time though. They tried loading up on skill guys around a diminished starter (Big Ben), they tried staying patient in the draft and take the guy that gets to you (Pickett) and they tried a storied vet on a roster with talent (Wilson). None of them was the answer. Especially if the plan was to give away Pickens and Minkah anyway. Replacing them with older vets and then signing Rodgers and then paying Watt a huge deal aged 30 (about to turn 31) just feels uber short termist as a strategy. Makes me wonder if Tomlin is already thinking he is done after 2025. 1 Quote
eball Posted July 20 Posted July 20 Nothing like signing a guy who disappears in the playoffs (whether due to injury or otherwise) to megabucks! I feel like the Stillers are going to be a s-h-i-t-show this season. 1 Quote
BarleyNY Posted July 20 Posted July 20 10 hours ago, GunnerBill said: I wouldn't have tanked any previous year as the Steelers. I would have considered it this time though. They tried loading up on skill guys around a diminished starter (Big Ben), they tried staying patient in the draft and take the guy that gets to you (Pickett) and they tried a storied vet on a roster with talent (Wilson). None of them was the answer. Especially if the plan was to give away Pickens and Minkah anyway. Replacing them with older vets and then signing Rodgers and then paying Watt a huge deal aged 30 (about to turn 31) just feels uber short termist as a strategy. Makes me wonder if Tomlin is already thinking he is done after 2025. I also was wondering if this was Tomlinson related. Either because he is ready to hang it up or he was getting pressure from ownership. Pickens seems like he is another in the same troublesome WR mold they get rid of just before they melt down. Quote
RoscoeParrish Posted July 20 Author Posted July 20 (edited) 21 hours ago, BarleyNY said: Sure. Tanking is a reasonable strategy. But tanking is by no means foolproof and it does them no good in the near term - and they have some talent. I can see why they believe that Rodgers can take them from a team that loses in the WC every season to one that can win one or more playoff games. Their strategy isn’t much different than the one with which the Manning QBed Broncos won a SB. HOF QB at the end of their career, stud Edge player, etc., etc. While I don’t think it is likely to work for a variety of reasons, I don’t blame them for taking a shot. They can always tank next offseason if they want to. I don’t think anyone in that org has a gun to their head tbh. The Steelers play meaningful football every year. Whether they have a real chance of winning a Super Bowl is debateable, but they are always in the mix. The Bills and Chiefs both found their franchise QBs being WC playoff teams. I think tanking is supremely overrated and Steelers ownership wants none of that. The bigger sin in Pittsburgh since Ben retired was NEVER taking a big shot on a QB. And if this Rodgers plan succeeds or fails, I imagine they will be forced to. Edited July 20 by RoscoeParrish 2 Quote
BarleyNY Posted July 20 Posted July 20 21 minutes ago, RoscoeParrish said: I don’t think anyone in that org has a gun to their head tbh. The Steelers play meaningful football every year. Whether they have a real chance of winning a Super Bowl is debateable, but they are always in the mix. The Bills and Chiefs both found their franchise QBs being WC playoff teams. I think tanking is supremely overrated and Steelers ownership wants none of that. The bigger sin in Pittsburgh since Ben retired was NEVER taking a big shot on a QB. And if this Rodgers plan succeeds or fails, I imagine they will be forced to. I don’t think Tomlin would tank any team either. He’d take a job with a team that already did and got their QB, but he wouldn’t be there for the tank. 2 Quote
JaCrispy Posted July 20 Posted July 20 On 7/17/2025 at 4:33 PM, NewEra said: We got Rousseau on such a great deal considering his age and potential. We got Rousseau for what he is worth- no more, no less… Quote
BarleyNY Posted July 20 Posted July 20 1 hour ago, JaCrispy said: We got Rousseau for what he is worth- no more, no less… I agree. And we know who he is. Any talk of his “potential” is just wishful thinking. 2 Quote
NewEra Posted July 20 Posted July 20 1 hour ago, JaCrispy said: We got Rousseau for what he is worth- no more, no less… He could’ve gotten more imo. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.