PDA

View Full Version : Starks signs 1 year deal


Stlrs4Life
02-21-2009, 03:46 PM
Steelers reach agreement with Starks
Saturday, February 21, 2009
By Gerry Dulac, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

INDIANAPOLIS The Steelers have reached agreement with left tackle Max Starks to accept their franchise tender of $8.451 million for the 2009 season, paving the way for the two sides to begin discussion on a long-term contract.

The Steelers have until mid-July to reach agreement on a contract with their 6-foot-8, 340-pound tackle or he will become an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season.

By accepting the franchise tender, Starks can no longer negotiate with other NFL teams about a possible contract. It was unlikely that was going to occur, however, because a team would have to compensate the Steelers with two No. 1 picks if they signed Starks.

http://www.post-gazette.com/

truesteelerfan
02-21-2009, 03:50 PM
Thats a lot of money...Starks has done pretty well financially from the Steelers the past 2 years if he plays out the upcoming season with the franchise tag...Hope that means he'll sign for a longer term next year (if not still this year) without breaking the bank since he's already been paid. He's competent, and I like investing in him over Smith with Smith's injury history. I would however offer Smith a contract at a low-ball offer with lots of incentives if he can stay healthy and on the field.

OneForTheToe
02-21-2009, 04:02 PM
Thats a lot of money...Starks has done pretty well financially from the Steelers the past 2 years if he plays out the upcoming season with the franchise tag...Hope that means he'll sign for a longer term next year (if not still this year) without breaking the bank since he's already been paid. He's competent, and I like investing in him over Smith with Smith's injury history. I would however offer Smith a contract at a low-ball offer with lots of incentives if he can stay healthy and on the field.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any way Marvel is going to sign a, incentive laden, low-ball, offer from the Steelers when we just gave his back-up $8.45 million. He would probably be more insulted by the offer than just a - "thanks for your time, but we are going to go a different direction" - pat on the back.

It's a nice thought though.

lilyoder6
02-21-2009, 04:49 PM
there will be teams looking at smith i suspect, so the steelers wouldn't be able 2 get away with a small salary

HometownGal
02-21-2009, 04:56 PM
Ughhhhhhhh. :banging: That is all.

RoethlisBURGHer
02-21-2009, 05:11 PM
I would rather give the money to Starks who will at least be healthy than give it to a guy who spent most of last season and a big chunk of the season before on IR.

Honestly, I think any team hat offers him a contract is gonna be incentive laden on how much time he spends on the active roster instead of IR.

St33lersguy
02-21-2009, 07:22 PM
Max Starks is not worth the $8.451mil. he got. Heck he's not worth S5 mil. I find it hard to believe that they couldn't give it to someone better.

MasterOfPuppets
02-21-2009, 07:29 PM
YAY !!!:cheer: ..........................:shake02:

Pi Kapp Steeler
02-21-2009, 07:45 PM
Ok so now what do you think Colbert has in mind? To attack the outside of the line or the interior line ?

T Bradshaw
02-21-2009, 11:42 PM
None of our OL players are worth $8 million

Stupid decision

markymarc
02-22-2009, 12:04 AM
Ughhhhhhhh. :banging: That is all.

I am right there with you HTG!

RoethlisBURGHer
02-22-2009, 12:35 AM
I am not jumping for joy about this, but Starks also isn't the worst offensive tackle in the NFL either.

We pick 32nd, unless we trade up and give up someone/something big, we're not landing an OT that can start his rookie year.

Having Starks means we can focus on the interior of the OL in the first round and grab a diamond in the rough in round 2 or 3.

MasterOfPuppets
02-22-2009, 12:54 AM
I am not jumping for joy about this, but Starks also isn't the worst offensive tackle in the NFL either.

We pick 32nd, unless we trade up and give up someone/something big, we're not landing an OT that can start his rookie year.

Having Starks means we can focus on the interior of the OL in the first round and grab a diamond in the rough in round 2 or 3. well duh......why would they pay "the worst" tackle in the league 8 mill ??? :laughing:

Preacher
02-22-2009, 02:11 AM
Max Starks is not worth the $8.451mil. he got. Heck he's not worth S5 mil. I find it hard to believe that they couldn't give it to someone better.


WHo? Name one that we could bring in and not break the bank over the next 5 years, and would STILL be 31 at the end of the contract, and ALSO wouldn't have a big learning curve like the guys went through this year.

Remember, in the playoffs and the SB, it wasn't Starks that had problems. It was the center three guys that had no push.

steelerdave1969
02-22-2009, 03:31 AM
Max Starks is not worth the $8.451mil. he got. Heck he's not worth S5 mil. I find it hard to believe that they couldn't give it to someone better.

The man has started for 2 Super Bowl Championship Teams with the Steelers, and he doesnt miss much time at all usually. I know the money is kind of too high for him, but is our starting LT and we must have that. So I think we just need to sit back and trust the Steelers front office and let them do their jobs, which I think they have done pretty well for the last 35 years or so.

Galax Steeler
02-22-2009, 06:05 AM
I don't think Starks is worth the 8 mill we gave him but I am trusting that the front office knows what they are doing.

SamUK
02-22-2009, 03:40 PM
Agreed with the having to wait and see what happens in the Draft.... Boy do we need some diamonds late on from the O-line spots!

steelreserve
02-22-2009, 03:45 PM
Why do we keep giving this guy the franchise tag when nobody else is exactly beating down his door to offer him big money?

GBMelBlount
02-22-2009, 05:30 PM
Preacher
Name one that we could bring in and not break the bank over the next 5 years, and would STILL be 31 at the end of the contract


31? Would that be his age or NFL ranking for his position? :thumbsup:

Steelerdave1969
The man has started for 2 Super Bowl Championship Teams with the Steelers, and he doesn't miss much time at all usually.

Two rings AND good attendance! Well, if you put it that way, then hey, what's 8 million? :wink02:

Perhaps Tomlin can put stars on their helmets for each game they start! :chuckle:

lilyoder6
02-22-2009, 05:55 PM
with max being good and still a young age... he would be a better suit than some of the lt that are starting now.. b/c they only have a few good yrs left

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-23-2009, 10:59 AM
31? Would that be his age or NFL ranking for his position? :thumbsup:



Two rings AND good attendance! Well, if you put it that way, then hey, what's 8 million? :wink02:

Perhaps Tomlin can put stars on their helmets for each game they start! :chuckle:

:rofl: Average play + good attendance = BIG PAYDAY!!

I guess Glen Edwards is regretting this new math. He got 2 rings, 2 pro bowl appearances and never got paid top 5 money. :banging:

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-23-2009, 11:01 AM
The Steelers have until mid-July to reach agreement on a contract with their 6-foot-8, 340-pound tackle or he will become an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season.
]

This is what I am clinging to hope for. 1 more season of tagged Starks.

tyler289
02-23-2009, 12:32 PM
Starks has started on 2 SB winning teams and hasn't been god-awful. He hasn't been good, but you know what, Colbert knows what he's doing. I trust his judgment.

Phoenixus
02-23-2009, 01:07 PM
He's not god aweful, in fact he's pretty solid, but he's no pro bowler let alone some kind of future hall of famer. I personally would only classify him as above average for a tackle. Others are right, it's mostly the interior of the line that needs some work, that's the running game.

And really there's no way they should be paying that much money to him.

The only way they'd do that is if he had them over a barrel.

About half the time the Steelers line got beat they got out schemed. I suspect this is probably partially due to losing Russ Grimm.

The Eagles started that trend that other teams copied.

They'd blitz an inside linebacker forcing Rothlisburger's attention front side then blitz an extra speed rusher from the outside forcing him directly into the pressure. It's why he got sacked so much that game. The tackle can only handle one, the guard needs to make the adjustment and take the extra inside guy while the tackle bounces out to the outside guy.

The line this year combined with not being able to make a good inside push for the running game also did not adjust that well to many schemes run against them.

jsteelers51191
02-24-2009, 08:33 AM
First off, Starks isn't even a top 20 tackle in the league, let alone 5. And now we WILLNOT be able to sign Bmac or Nate which kills depth at both positions as there is no one behind ike and gay and sweed is very unproven. And no ones knows about gay for sure.

LukesDad88
02-24-2009, 09:56 AM
Mac and Nate aren't priority free agents as the personnel guys feel there is talent to move in to their spots without too much drop in production. That's the personnel guys jobs, and so far they've done a pretty decent job of it. I'll trust them.

Do I think that 8-9 mill is too much for Starks? Yeah. but there's not a whole lot of choice out there in free agency or draft. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised to see them renegotiate a three year deal at around 15 mill with a signing bonus. That will reduce the cap hit, and give Starks a little more long term security which he'd probably be willing to take over a one year payday.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-24-2009, 10:03 AM
Mac and Nate aren't priority free agents as the personnel guys feel there is talent to move in to their spots without too much drop in production. That's the personnel guys jobs, and so far they've done a pretty decent job of it. I'll trust them.

Do I think that 8-9 mill is too much for Starks? Yeah. but there's not a whole lot of choice out there in free agency or draft. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised to see them renegotiate a three year deal at around 15 mill with a signing bonus. That will reduce the cap hit, and give Starks a little more long term security which he'd probably be willing to take over a one year payday.

I hope that is all he signs for, but considering that Vernon Carey signed for over $6mil a season I bet Starks wants around $6.5mil a season on a 4-5 year deal. Ouch. :kick:

revefsreleets
02-24-2009, 06:15 PM
I'm trying to find game grades for Starks as a starter.

What I've found, while hardly comprehensive or reliable, seems to paint a picture of a pretty reliable LT. Not so much at RT.

I'm gonna go ahead and give the FO the benefit of the doubt once again. It worked last year (I said his huge payday was worth it and more if we won the SB...and we did and he started!)

MasterOfPuppets
02-24-2009, 07:01 PM
starks started 11 games and gave up 4 sacks, had he started the other 5 i'm sure that number would've increased. he was fortunate to not have to face mario williams, or the iggle onslaught.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-24-2009, 08:05 PM
I'm trying to find game grades for Starks as a starter.

What I've found, while hardly comprehensive or reliable, seems to paint a picture of a pretty reliable LT. Not so much at RT.

I'm gonna go ahead and give the FO the benefit of the doubt once again. It worked last year (I said his huge payday was worth it and more if we won the SB...and we did and he started!)
This is hardly quantitative, but here is a summary of what Scouts Inc. said about Starks as they ranked all 106 players in this past super bowl. This is the opinion of Scouts Inc. not mine.

In determining our rankings, we took into consideration the player's current performance, as well as his play throughout the season.

OT Max Starks -- Steelers
He has very good size and functional play strength for a left tackle. He still has a lot of potential, but has struggled throughout the season with consistency. He doesn't always bend well and has limited lateral quickness in pass protection.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs2008/news/story?id=3849137

MasterOfPuppets
02-24-2009, 11:03 PM
This is hardly quantitative, but here is a summary of what Scouts Inc. said about Starks as they ranked all 106 players in this past super bowl. This is the opinion of Scouts Inc. not mine.

In determining our rankings, we took into consideration the player's current performance, as well as his play throughout the season.

OT Max Starks -- Steelers
He has very good size and functional play strength for a left tackle. He still has a lot of potential, but has struggled throughout the season with consistency. He doesn't always bend well and has limited lateral quickness in pass protection.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs2008/news/story?id=3849137so 5 years later, his report STILL reads like his draft scouting report.....so lets all keep hangin on hoping that "POTENTIAL"........becomes reality.....:laughing:

Galax Steeler
02-25-2009, 03:31 AM
I sure hope they know what they are doing that is alot of money for a guy like that.