PDA

View Full Version : Steelers' Porter deserves to come back


83-Steelers-43
02-17-2007, 08:02 AM
Steelers' Porter deserves to come back

By John Harris
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, February 17, 2007


Joey Porter is a player who elicits varying emotions from Steelers fans. He has a big mouth, plus he had a bad year, the argument goes. He loves to talk, but he usually backs it up.

A so-called bad year still resulted in Porter racking up a team-high seven sacks. Playing in two fewer games than the previous season because of a hamstring injury -- he also was coming off offseason knee surgery -- Porter had three more tackles but 3 1/2 fewer sacks in 2006.

Love him or hate him, Porter remains a defensive presence and is the Steelers' best outside linebacker.

Of course, with new coach Mike Tomlin, the roster is subject to change. But getting rid of Porter for change's sake is not the solution.

There aren't too many linebackers who can play the run, rush the passer and sprint stride for stride with a running back or tight end. Porter can. He's also great in the locker room and has a firm understanding of his role in the defense. However, it's a defense that could undergo major changes in personnel as well as in terms of scheme.

Porter's sacks were down in 2006. That's not a good sign for a linebacker who relies on his speed and quickness.

Porter also isn't getting any younger. He turns 30 on March 22, 16 days after he's due to receive a $1 million roster bonus.

NFL teams are more likely to pay for a player approaching his upside than one who could be nearing his downside. That could be why the Steelers haven't given Porter the new deal he asked for last season after they won Super Bowl XL.

Normally, the Steelers like to re-sign their core players one year early. That was the case last season with cornerback Ike Taylor, and it will likely be the case this offseason with safety Troy Polamalu and guard Alan Faneca.

Porter, who is entering the final year of a contract that will pay him $4 million in 2007, can make a valid argument. He's an all-around linebacker whose game shouldn't be based solely on sacks.

In addition to leading the team in sacks, Porter was third in quarterback hurries (12), seventh in passes defensed (five) and had two interceptions, returning one for a touchdown.

"In our system, you're going to be asked to do everything," Porter said in November. "You're going to have to cover. You're going to have to play man-to-man with the tight end. You're going to have to know how to do a vertical drop. You're going to have to know how to do zone schemes. When I'm doing all that stuff, you can't be asking for sacks. I'm playing the scheme.

"If I don't get too many sacks, (critics) are going to say I had a bad year. I don't look at it that way."

The Steelers might. So don't be surprised if Porter is released if it's believed his skills are in decline, and he's no longer deserving of the big bucks.

If the Steelers do pay Porter's roster bonus next month, it means management is committed to him for at least one more season at a salary cap hit of $6.1 million. That's a lot of cash and a reassuring commitment to Porter.

Porter badly wants an extension, but the Steelers could be dangling a carrot in the form of a new contract if he delivers in 2007. A lot of players have a productive year during the season in which their contract ends.

The Steelers as currently constructed have one or two more seasons to make a serious championship run before making some major changes. Unless the Steelers sign an accomplished veteran linebacker in free agency, Porter deserves to remain a big part of that nucleus.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_493675.html

Atlanta Dan
02-17-2007, 08:39 AM
Agree with the concluding paragraph that this group has one more year left before the major rebuilding starts in 2008.

For that reason, I think Porter comes back since no replacement is around. After that, I see Porter clearly gone in 2008.

If you follow the rationale of the article that a major rebuilding starts soon & you do not pay big $ for players on the downslope of their career, I also do not regard it as any sure thing that the Steelers will pay Faneca what he can command on the open market in 2008.

83-Steelers-43
02-17-2007, 08:55 AM
Agree with the concluding paragraph that this group has one more year left before the major rebuilding starts in 2008.

For that reason, I think Porter comes back since no replacement is around. After that, I see Porter clearly gone in 2008.

If you follow the rationale of the article that a major rebuilding starts soon & you do not pay big $ for players on the downslope of their career, I also do not regard it as any sure thing that the Steelers will pay Faneca what he can command on the open market in 2008.

I agree completely. Many want to cut Porter and that's all fine and dandy if we had the depth. That's not he case. Let Porter play out his last year, draft a OLB this year, let him learn and plug him in after Porter's gone.

tony hipchest
02-17-2007, 11:55 AM
bashing porters "declining skills", underachieving play, and old age seems to be a pretty en vogue thing these days. yet if he were to play for basement prices like vrabel or bruschi people would say how great he is. its really a money issue.

after all he is younger than bruschi, vrabel, and the same age as colvin, and more productive than all 3 of them. yet you dont see the patriots want to dump any of those guys for lack of production. in fact, you see them looking to add guys like seau and brown to the group.

DACEB
02-17-2007, 01:25 PM
I agree Porter should and MUST stay IMO, as the article said HE is our best OLB. We must and probably will draft for depth and the future. After this year who knows, but who can we bring in as a FA that will play better in our schemes for less money.

And as they say contract years are always the best years, so Porter should have a good year if he stays healthy.

polamalufan43
02-17-2007, 05:03 PM
Well, it even siad on the news that Porter's future is unsure. At this point, I want him to stay, but like any other opinion this could change. I mean, he I think he should stay because he could help with younger LB and keep helping the team as well. And it really sucks that last season didn't go so well, because that made alot of people on the team look bad, and that in turn might make some people's views on him change.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

Steeldude
02-18-2007, 02:54 AM
you have to look the pros and cons

CONS: age, salary, inconsistency, average to below average play

PROS: cutting him saves a little over 5 mil in cap room, finding a LB to match porter's productivity will be easy


if people think porter is the steelers best LB then we are worse off then ever.

MasterOfPuppets
02-18-2007, 03:09 AM
anybody remember gildon??? awesome outside lber till he got his fat contract at about 30.....:jawdrop:

SteelShooter
02-18-2007, 11:09 AM
This is what I posted in the "DUCE STALEY - 2.3mil against the Cap" thread:



.........................I still like Porter. Let's see what he brings this season and then decide from there.

Look at it this way; Ben did not produce much this year, neither did Ward, or Heath, or many others. Are we ready to abandon them all just because of one bad season? Sure he's aging, but he gets the defense fired up. He intimidates the opposing QB's. He DOES bring something of value to the table.

Let's see what he actually brings this season.......if it is nothing, bench him as a backup, give others a shot, and simply let him go when his contract expires at the end of this season.
__________________

ChronoCross
02-18-2007, 12:19 PM
you have to look the pros and cons

CONS: age, salary, inconsistency, average to below average play

PROS: cutting him saves a little over 5 mil in cap room, finding a LB to match porter's productivity will be easy


if people think porter is the steelers best LB then we are worse off then ever.

Porter inconsistency comes from teams who plan to stop him. Porter is constantly double and tripped teamed at times. Porter constantly plays at a high level, if the other team lets there guard down for a min, that QB is his. The whole team in general had a bad season. Porter is that up lift on defense before games, during games. Ya we could cut him but it would not be a good move to me. And you think finding a LBer to match Porters Strength, Speed, Coverage Skills, Blitzing Skills is easy you might want to rethink there, its not that simple. You ask any team out there what they have to do to plan each game and the main factor in there offensive scheme is to stop Porter.

We will draft LBers, and watch the type of LBers they draft because it will give you a ideal if were going to move away from the 3-4 in the upcoming years. 2008-2009 will be the big years for the defense in change far as contracts, let goes, new faces, ones we have grooming getting starting positions. And Porter most likely gone after this season if he does not come to a contract agreement for lesser money then what he probably wants.

SteelShooter
02-18-2007, 12:45 PM
I like what you are saying ChronoCross!

slashsteel
02-18-2007, 01:42 PM
I don't think Porter will be going anywhere. He brings leadership to the D, as well as play making ability. It seems to me every time someone gets down on Porter it is that he didn't have as good of a year as the SB run or when he was coming off the gunshot wound, or look at Gildon, or how much will he cost u?

We have proven as a organization not to break the bank. So if Joey is reasonable he will still be a Steeler. And I think he understands this and will conform when pushed. Please don't compare Jason and Joey. I simply don't think it is a fair comparison. Apples to oranges there IMO.

But here is something for the Joey haters. Take a hard look at what our other OLBer is doing before pointing fingers his way. As the way I see it he hasn't got a whole helleva lot of help from the other backers. If Harrison could stay healthy if Haggans was a step quicker, if we would have drafted a young LBer. If Foote or Farrior could blitz more effectively............. Things a fanatic might want to look at before dissing our Peezy. ;)

Dylan
02-18-2007, 10:18 PM
I would like to see porter back for 2-3 more years

OneForTheToe
02-19-2007, 01:33 AM
I was watching the "Sports Showdown" on KDKA and Bob P. said that at the Pro Bowl Casey Hampton told him that he expects Joey to hold out for a new contract. That would leave the Steelers with a decision to make.

Preacher
02-19-2007, 05:52 AM
Here is the big question... of that 5. whatever against the cap. How much of that is salary and how much of that is signing bonus and other bonus? Why do I ask? Cause it will go into determing the best way to deal with this.

If it is a large part salary, then we can give him a new contract, a decent signing bonus, and backload part of the contract plus bonuses. It will also make room for some other deals.

However, if it is mainly in signing bonus, then it will not be worth it for us to renegotiate, as the signing bonus still must be paid (I beleive.) Either way, at age 30, we should only be signing a two or three year contract AT THE MOST. Then, year by year thereafter.

SteelerMurf
02-19-2007, 08:15 AM
Porter deserves to be here more than Haggans.....the Steelers are going to be stuck resigning Porter late in his career just like they did Gildon. The reason is, the Steelers have had a horrible time developing outside LB talent. With more and more teams playing a 3-4, you can't blow a draft pick like Alonzo Jackson. And there is no more waiting until the 3rd round to get guys that teams now pick in the first round.

Steeldude
02-19-2007, 11:04 AM
But here is something for the Joey haters. Take a hard look at what our other OLBer is doing before pointing fingers his way. As the way I see it he hasn't got a whole helleva lot of help from the other backers. If Harrison could stay healthy if Haggans was a step quicker, if we would have drafted a young LBer. If Foote or Farrior could blitz more effectively............. Things a fanatic might want to look at before dissing our Peezy. ;)

i look at it the other way. if porter put forth more effort, the other LBs wouldn't have to deal with so much. porter is non-exsistent. offenses don't have to account for porter on the field.

porter is slowly turning into gildon. the guy simply doesn't make plays on the field. he is content with making a fool of himself during pre-game and then disappearing when the game starts.

haggans - 76 tackles, 6 sacks, 1 INT, 3 PD

porter - 51 tackles, 7 sacks, 2 INT, 3 PD

let's not forget that porter had 4 games with either just an assist or a single tackle. yeah, he is a real playmaker...lol. arnold harrison played pretty well in place of porter this past season. i didn't notice any dropoff. looked more like an improvement, IMO.

ChronoCross
02-19-2007, 03:27 PM
i look at it the other way. if porter put forth more effort, the other LBs wouldn't have to deal with so much. porter is non-exsistent. offenses don't have to account for porter on the field.

porter is slowly turning into gildon. the guy simply doesn't make plays on the field. he is content with making a fool of himself during pre-game and then disappearing when the game starts.

haggans - 76 tackles, 6 sacks, 1 INT, 3 PD

porter - 51 tackles, 7 sacks, 2 INT, 3 PD

let's not forget that porter had 4 games with either just an assist or a single tackle. yeah, he is a real playmaker...lol. arnold harrison played pretty well in place of porter this past season. i didn't notice any dropoff. looked more like an improvement, IMO.

Your post alone makes you look like a fool and that you do not watch much Steeler football if you think Arnold was a improvement. Lets see did you see that Arnold had no sacks, no INTS, no anything special and you think that is a improvement. Dude please take off the blinders and think before you post on Porter. You know what ill leave this one be. You clearly do not understand whats going on in the trenches.

Steeldude
02-19-2007, 05:13 PM
Your post alone makes you look like a fool and that you do not watch much Steeler football if you think Arnold was a improvement. Lets see did you see that Arnold had no sacks, no INTS, no anything special and you think that is a improvement. Dude please take off the blinders and think before you post on Porter. You know what ill leave this one be. You clearly do not understand whats going on in the trenches.

your post makes you like a lemming who is enamored with sacks. tell me, what did porter do last year that was so special? in 4 games porter came up empty in all categories except for the 2 assists in 2 games and the 2 tackles in 2 games. let's see, porter is called the most feared man if the NFL, but can't do better than that...lol.

if you noticed i said he looked more like an improvement, not was an improvement. he was certainly more active than porter. but take into account harrison never started and he makes less money. compare that to porter's salary, experience and lack of plays and tell me what you get.

i don't expect LBs to get INTs, but i do expect them to make tackles. something porter was sorely lacking in 4 games. it appears you judge LBs on sacks and INTs. porter couldn't even beat out kirschke for total QB pressures. kirschke doesn't even start and he plays the line. isn't the most feared man in the NFL supposed to be wreaking havoc back there?

what kind of a dropoff did you see when harrison filled in for porter? obviously he is going to make mistakes. the guy has never started in his career and was rushed into it when j. harrison went down too.

you need to take the porter goggles off and actually watch the games. watching highlights on NFL primetime isn't going to give the entire picture.

Preacher
02-19-2007, 05:24 PM
Okay.. let's take a second look at stats... stats NEVER tell the whole story.

1. Why did Porter not get as many tackles. I want to see tackles PER GAMES PLAYED.
2. More importantly, did offenses run AWAY from Porter to the off side often? Did Porter get his tackles chasing players to the off-side? Or did he get them as they were coming at him because he was perceived as weak.

Those are the major questions to ask. You can't make ANY decisions based on stats alone.

Steeldude
02-19-2007, 05:27 PM
Porter inconsistency comes from teams who plan to stop him. Porter is constantly double and tripped teamed at times. Porter constantly plays at a high level, if the other team lets there guard down for a min, that QB is his. The whole team in general had a bad season. Porter is that up lift on defense before games, during games. Ya we could cut him but it would not be a good move to me. And you think finding a LBer to match Porters Strength, Speed, Coverage Skills, Blitzing Skills is easy you might want to rethink there, its not that simple. You ask any team out there what they have to do to plan each game and the main factor in there offensive scheme is to stop Porter.

We will draft LBers, and watch the type of LBers they draft because it will give you a ideal if were going to move away from the 3-4 in the upcoming years. 2008-2009 will be the big years for the defense in change far as contracts, let goes, new faces, ones we have grooming getting starting positions. And Porter most likely gone after this season if he does not come to a contract agreement for lesser money then what he probably wants.

porter is rarely doubled let alone tripled. what games are you watching?

did you even watch him against the ravens?

your post sounds exactly like the gildon posts a few years back. so many gildon fans were saying how fast, strong and skilled he was too.

tony hipchest
02-19-2007, 05:28 PM
i don't expect LBs to get INTs, but i do expect them to make tackles. something porter was sorely lacking in 4 games. it appears you judge LBs on sacks and INTs. porter couldn't even beat out kirschke for total QB pressures. kirschke doesn't even start and he plays the line. isn't the most feared man in the NFL supposed to be wreaking havoc back there?

.answer me this then. is kirschke a situational pass rusher on 3rd down or is he frequently asked to run around all game, drop back into coverage, and go one on one with the opponents rb and/or TE?

Steeldude
02-19-2007, 05:40 PM
tony, kirschke comes in to relieve keisel and smith. the D-lines objective is to take on blockers so the LBs have an easier time pressuring the QB and/or making plays. the entire defense is based around the LBs making the plays.

your question is comparing two different positions on the steelers defense. the LBs are supposed to add the pressure. of course that is not saying that the D-line isn't supposed to add pressure too. kirschke is rarely on the field. shouldn't this so-called great LB be doing more than disappearing acts?

tony hipchest
02-19-2007, 05:51 PM
tony, kirschke comes in to relieve keisel and smith. the D-lines objective is to take on blockers so the LBs have an easier time pressuring the QB and/or making plays. the entire defense is based around the LBs making the plays.

your question is comparing two different positions on the steelers defense. the LBs are supposed to add the pressure. of course that is not saying that the D-line isn't supposed to add pressure too. kirschke is rarely on the field. shouldn't this so-called great LB be doing more than disappearing acts?exactly. so why are you comparing porters qb pressures to kirschke's?

although i brought this up in another post, i can see where porter is manhandled for a whole game when he is asked to single up against players such as walter jones and jonathan ogden. greg lloyd was critisized for being owned by larry allen in the superbowl. for fans not to understand that this is a matchup no one can expect them to win is beyond me. asking porter to beat these guys is almost like asking him to cover reggie bush or steve smith in the open field. i think alot of people just dont like porter because he has a big mouth, and because he got skunked in the superbowl after calling out j. stevens.

Steeldude
02-19-2007, 05:57 PM
because tony, if the D-line's job isn't pressuring the QB and the LBs job is for pressuring, it kinds of tells you how poorly the LBs are playing. kirschke shouldn't be beating out LBs in the pressure/hurries category.

ChronoCross
02-19-2007, 06:04 PM
I clearly cannot read this Steeldude. To me he does not watch the game. He does not watch how much time Porter spends in coverage. He does not see the team run more away from Porter then at Porter. He is just a total Porter Basher. If he does not think Porter is Strong and Fast, then he clearly does not know much. He only looks at the Stats and not what is happening on the field. I have seen Porter in more double team then single blocked. And going against Ogden one of the best ever in the Game who no one gets by because of his size and skill is something all OLBs deal with against the Ravens. Steeldude your one of kind. Not even worth replying to no more. Your mind is closed to the subject and you only look at the numbers and not what happens on the field. And for some odd reason you do not like Porter. Welp go google some more stats for other people.

tony hipchest
02-19-2007, 06:15 PM
because tony, if the D-line's job isn't pressuring the QB and the LBs job is for pressuring, it kinds of tells you how poorly the LBs are playing. kirschke shouldn't be beating out LBs in the pressure/hurries category.well this is kind of a blanket statement that is still comparing apples to oranges. ther was aknock on keisel cause supposedly all he could do was pressure the qb and not stop the run, even though until he became a starter all he was really asked to do was be a situational pass rusher. doesnt it stand to reason that if kirsckes job is to be a situational pass rusher he would be capable of getting pressure on the qb.

really, what is your issue with porter? is it-

the money he makes?
the trash he talks?
or the play of the LB corps as a whole?

you said:
it kinds of tells you how poorly the LBs are playing.

so why single out porter? is it just because he is the face of the defense? is it because he was one of cowhers favorites?

i really dont care how much a player makes as long as we are under the cap and the steelers are able to keep on keeping on. if we look at dollar signs and production alone, the steelers need to cut about 10-15 players so to match the 49ers and the mediocre season they put up. i cant figure out why porter is the one being singled out. the steelers are not better off without him. if they were arnold, harrison, or wallace, would already be starting and porter would be ditched just like lloyd, green, holmes, gildon, kirkland, nickerson, brown, etc. before him.

Steeldude
02-19-2007, 06:25 PM
I clearly cannot read this Steeldude. To me he does not watch the game. He does not watch how much time Porter spends in coverage. He does not see the team run more away from Porter then at Porter. He is just a total Porter Basher. If he does not think Porter is Strong and Fast, then he clearly does not know much. He only looks at the Stats and not what is happening on the field. I have seen Porter in more double team then single blocked. And going against Ogden one of the best ever in the Game who no one gets by because of his size and skill is something all OLBs deal with against the Ravens. Steeldude your one of kind. Not even worth replying to no more. Your mind is closed to the subject and you only look at the numbers and not what happens on the field. And for some odd reason you do not like Porter. Welp go google some more stats for other people.

you are just a porter lover. see, two can play that game...lol.

check the games, chrono. teams run to the left a lot against the steelers. in fact, on another site there was a post made showing how successful teams were running towards porter's side.

i remember people saying these types of things to me when i discussed stewart, burress and gildon. how stewart's stats didn't mean anything and how strong he was and how fast he was on the field.

plenty of players are strong and fast, but that doesn't mean they are great or even good. tell me, even if porter was in coveage 100% of the time how does he come up with so few stats and plays made? you are right, stats don't always tell the whole story. but in this case they pretty much do. porter is caught looking rather than reacting. he wasn't like this 2 or more years ago. he seems to have become complacent with waiting for action to come towards him rather than going towards it.

you ignore numbers and a player's impact or lack there of, on the field. it seems you base your arguments on owning a jersey with #55 on the back.

Steeldude
02-19-2007, 06:41 PM
well this is kind of a blanket statement that is still comparing apples to oranges. ther was aknock on keisel cause supposedly all he could do was pressure the qb and not stop the run, even though until he became a starter all he was really asked to do was be a situational pass rusher. doesnt it stand to reason that if kirsckes job is to be a situational pass rusher he would be capable of getting pressure on the qb.

really, what is your issue with porter? is it-

the money he makes?
the trash he talks?
or the play of the LB corps as a whole?


so why single out porter? is it just because he is the face of the defense? is it because he was one of cowhers favorites?

i really dont care how much a player makes as long as we are under the cap and the steelers are able to keep on keeping on. if we look at dollar signs and production alone, the steelers need to cut about 10-15 players so to match the 49ers and the mediocre season they put up. i cant figure out why porter is the one being singled out. the steelers are not better off without him. if they were arnold, harrison, or wallace, would already be starting and porter would be ditched just like lloyd, green, holmes, gildon, kirkland, nickerson, brown, etc. before him.

porter's age, inconsistency, salary and diminishing skills make porter expendable, IMO.

porter is singled out because the title of the thread states his name in it.

the entire LB corps is average. i don't see anyone that is anywhere near a lloyd type of player. i don't expect every LB to be good or even lloyd-like. but should at least one be close to it? the LBs are supposed to be the playmakers, but they look to be just average LBs benefitting from a LB friendly system.

as for porter's mouth. for as much trash as he talks he sure doesn't back it up on the field.

if porter stays, then he stays. i just hope he plays a lot better and more consistently. maybe like he did back in 2002 when he was attacking plays.

paxtonsteeler
02-20-2007, 02:40 PM
I am hearing a lot of talk on Sirius NFL radio about Joey Porter becoming a cap victim. Pat Kirwin seems to think he will go because he is getting old and he counts high against the cap. I think this would be a major mistake. First, who do we have or could we get to replace him at the same level of play? Second, there is an intangible here that Pat is not considering. We lost one team leader in Jerome. We really cannot afford to lose another right now. Joey's #s were down last year but he still was way up there in tackles and sacks. If you are called on to cover receivers you cannot be making sacks. Any thoughts? What am I missing?

Serbia_Steeler
02-20-2007, 02:47 PM
I'm with you, fully agree! I realy love pasion whim Joey bring with him!

BOXCAR JOEY
02-20-2007, 02:48 PM
i dont think the club would lose a player like porter. He's def. an inspirational speaker for the team and sometimes thats a helluva lot better than what numbers you make during the season.

ChronoCross
02-20-2007, 03:08 PM
.......

HometownGal
02-20-2007, 07:07 PM
Paxton - I combined your thread with 83's thread on Peezy.

Just a reminder folks - please do a search before posting new threads. Only takes a sec! :smile: