PDA

View Full Version : Harris: Sides far apart on Starks' deal


mesaSteeler
05-23-2009, 01:55 AM
Harris: Sides far apart on Starks' deal
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_626501.html#
By John Harris
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, May 23, 2009

Max Starks isn't seeking sympathy, because he knows he isn't worthy. Not with gas prices rising along with unemployment, and foreclosures becoming an American staple.

Starks will earn $8.4 million next season to play left tackle as the Steelers' franchise player.

Coupled with last year's $6.9 million salary as the team's transition player, Starks will earn a mind-boggling $15.3 million over two years.

Given that the Steelers rarely throw around money like drunken sailors on leave, Starks must be a pretty valuable commodity. And while $15.3 million should be more than enough for Starks to live on for the rest of his life, he is a professional football player in the prime of his career, playing a game where multi-million dollar contracts are the norm.

Starks is merely playing by the rules.

"It's about contracts or guaranteed money,'' Starks said.

The Steelers decided to pay Starks like a Pro Bowl left tackle, effectively knocking their salary cap out of whack.

But even after spending so much money on a player who didn't open the 2008 season in the starting lineup, Starks' future with the Steelers remains uncertain.

The Steelers designated Starks as their franchise player with the purpose of signing him to a long-term deal. Starks, however, said the sides are far apart. Per team policy, the Steelers don't comment on player negotiations.

"It appears to be at a standstill," Starks said. "I thought I was a priority before. Then, they did James Harrison's deal when he had one year left. So apparently, I'm a lower man on the totem pole than I thought."

Starks isn't blameless. The Steelers will make him one of the NFL's highest-paid linemen this season. Starks could give the Steelers a "hometown'' discount and accept a multi-year contract averaging less than the $8.45 salary he will receive as a franchise player. But business, after all, is business.

"For me, it's more about the security aspect," said Starks, 27. "A lot of guys want to be somewhere securely more than paid very well for a finite amount of time. I've signed one-year deals for the last three years and haven't been offered a multi-year deal yet. You wonder: You like me enough not to lose me. Do you like me enough to keep me long term?"

Will Starks remain with the Steelers beyond 2009? Based on the apparent stalemate in negotiations, that doesn't seem likely.

"They don't (negotiate) during the season," Starks said. "Time is of the essence to get it done before the season.

"It's not all about money."

Truth be told, it's always about the money. It just so happens the Steelers are offering less than Starks will accept.

John Harris can be reached at jharris@tribweb.com or 412-481-543

steelreserve
05-23-2009, 02:02 AM
Screw Starks. We could get a guy just as reliable as him for a quarter of that money. He's the luckiest S.O.B. in the whole league if you ask me.

BlastFurnace
05-23-2009, 05:33 AM
The Steelers are always fair with their contract proposals.

I have always defended Max and the Steelers decision to keep him, but If Max is being stubborn and turning down fair deals, then it's time to let him walk after the season is over.

HometownGal
05-23-2009, 06:18 AM
Screw Starks. We could get a guy just as reliable as him for a quarter of that money. He's the luckiest S.O.B. in the whole league if you ask me.

AMEN! I like Max, but imho, he has yet to prove that he is worth the big payday.

Galax Steeler
05-23-2009, 07:03 AM
I say give him the money that is owed to him and let him walk. He is definetly not worth the big money.

fansince'76
05-23-2009, 07:27 AM
AMEN! I like Max, but imho, he has yet to prove that he is worth the big payday.

Agreed - I'm getting tired of watching a mediocre player effectively hold this team hostage. Time to let him walk once this next season is over.

"It's not all about money."

Funny, I don't see him offering to take a cut. :coffee:

mulldog24
05-23-2009, 08:21 AM
I really wish we would have taken a tackle in one of the drafts the last 2 years and let his sorry but walk!!!!!!!!!:banging::mad:

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-23-2009, 09:52 AM
I really wish we would have taken a tackle in one of the drafts the last 2 years and let his sorry but walk!!!!!!!!!:banging::mad:

Who, like Anthony Collins last year or Eben Britton, William Beatty this year?? I guess there were good guys available instead of paying Starks $16million over 2 seasons........but we have to remember the almighty rules of the rational posters here :rulez:

THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE FRONT OFFICE DECISIONS!!! :nw:

The Duke
05-23-2009, 09:58 AM
I'm torn. I want to see him sign a deal to improve the steelers cap room, but I don't want him as the steelers future solution at LT

oh well, whatever happens. he's not worth it either way....

lilyoder6
05-23-2009, 10:01 AM
it's a shitty situation...

max is being a douche and what not... and the steelers shoulda coulda would of.. but can't cry bout the past

truesteelerfan
05-23-2009, 10:37 AM
I like Starks...he's a servicable player I would prefer on our right side, but I also agree he's not worthy of pro bowl player salary...But to defend him...he's doing exactly what most of us would be doing in his situation. I don't think he was probably a Steeler fan growing up like most of us were, and he has what...maybe 10 years left in his career...I'm sure if we were in his shoes...we'd all be asking for big bucks too right? I mean with the offers we've given him last and this year..what is his incentive to give us a hometown discount?

LVSteelersfan
05-23-2009, 10:40 AM
Who, like Anthony Collins last year or Eben Britton, William Beatty this year?? I guess there were good guys available instead of paying Starks $16million over 2 seasons........but we have to remember the almighty rules of the rational posters here :rulez:

THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE FRONT OFFICE DECISIONS!!! :nw:

And don't forget it. The FO is God. I do have to admit the Starks situation has me scratching my head though. Overpaid and unwilling to negotiate. Let the jerk go. He is ruining deals that could be made to other more important players. Heath Miller comes to mind.

austinfrench76
05-23-2009, 11:52 AM
He compared himself to Harrison?!?!?!?! Let him walk! Go to the front of Heinz field and remove one of the turnstyles and that will certainly cost less than $15 million! Starks says, I wasnt as high a priority as Harrison?!?! NO S$^@!

Psyychoward86
05-23-2009, 01:10 PM
I think if he isnt going to budge it's time to let him go. I bet Willie Colon will be a lot more lenient. Yeah he's worse, but with two seasons under his belt he should get better. I think Colon and Hills might be a possibility at OT in the future :noidea:

srk173
05-23-2009, 01:14 PM
I really wish we would have taken a tackle in one of the drafts the last 2 years and let his sorry but walk!!!!!!!!!:banging::mad:

They did...Tony Hills. Just waiting for him to develop so Starks is expandable.

Texasteel
05-23-2009, 02:59 PM
AMEN! I like Max, but imho, he has yet to prove that he is worth the big payday.

Thats the problem with overpaying someone like him. He starts to think that he is better than he actually is.


Let him walk.

HometownGal
05-23-2009, 03:32 PM
I'd be willing to bet Starks would take a "hometown discount" if the Steelers threw in a couple of pizzas from Dominos, a few beef 'n cheddars from Arby's, some Primantis sammiches and a lifetime guest pass at the all you can eat buffet at The Peking Moon. :chuckle:

OneForTheToe
05-23-2009, 03:54 PM
I'd be willing to bet Starks would take a "hometown discount" if the Steelers threw in a couple of pizzas from Dominos, a few beef 'n cheddars from Arby's, some Primantis sammiches and a lifetime guest pass at the all you can eat buffet at The Peking Moon. :chuckle:


Probably cheaper to pay him 8 million in cash than to feed him.

The only good news with his inflated salary, is that it will probably be gone next season. With a cap or without a cap, the Steelers will probably wave goodbye. If Hills or someone else on the roster steps up we will be ok. If not we will have to go FA shopping.

Edman
05-23-2009, 04:03 PM
I was one of the few that defended Mr.Starks on here after his above average season at LT, but if he's going to be like that, screw him. James Harrison is back to back Pro Bowler and reigning defensive MVP of the league. You prior to 2008, was a mediocre tackle that lost his job on a SB winning team to Willie Freakin' Colon, and only got in to an injury to an LT who had a crippling back. Of course you're not as high priority, dumbass.

Max sealed his fate. The Steelers offer fair deals to player they feel they are worth. One sign of greed is a death knell in Pittsburgh. He can forget his new deal.

Let some mediocre franchise overpay for this chump after 2009. The Steelers aren't going to do it.

triphahn
05-23-2009, 05:20 PM
Why do we put a franchise tag on this guy. It seems thats whats pushing him into the crazy salary range. It also seems we have been over paying him and he could take a cut not just to help the team but because he has all ready been over compensated.

LVSteelersfan
05-23-2009, 05:38 PM
Starks is a soso player (nowhere even NEAR ANY OF THE DEFENSIVE PLAYERS) who should shut his mouth and take what he is worth. Damn tags have got his head swollen big time. Some chump team will pay him a lot of money because LTs are so hard to find. But he will not be worth it. The QB of whatever team he goes to better have his head on a swivel because pressure from the back side will be great.

Cmdurand21
05-23-2009, 05:53 PM
Starks is a decent player. But he doesn't deserve this 7-8 mil a year that they are talking about. I feel like we could take that money and maybe give Hampton a couple more years and sign a OT in free agency. Whatever they do I trust in the organization to do the right thing.

Here is a list of all FA OL in the 2010 season: http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?option=OL&y=2010

Texasteel
05-23-2009, 07:45 PM
Why do we put a franchise tag on this guy. It seems thats whats pushing him into the crazy salary range. It also seems we have been over paying him and he could take a cut not just to help the team but because he has all ready been over compensated.

Probably because the only thing crazier than a player that thinks he's better than he is, is an owner that thinks a player is better than he is. Please see Washington Redskins.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-23-2009, 08:38 PM
Starks is a decent player. But he doesn't deserve this 7-8 mil a year that they are talking about. I feel like we could take that money and maybe give Hampton a couple more years and sign a OT in free agency. Whatever they do I trust in the organization to do the right thing.

Here is a list of all FA OL in the 2010 season: http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?option=OL&y=2010

I was in favor of letting Starks go last year and going with Smith, Essex, Colon a rookie and another vet like Willie Anderson. I hate the fact they kept him around again.

I would love if they took a run at Marcus McNeil next year.....at least he is worth $8million and they could probably back load a 5 year deal for him that is cap friendly. All I can do is hope.

BehindSteelCurtain
05-23-2009, 08:59 PM
Say hello to the Cardinals starting tackle next season.

mulldog24
05-23-2009, 09:33 PM
They did...Tony Hills. Just waiting for him to develop so Starks is expandable.

Yes i know we drafted Hills but he is still a project. If Starks felt any pressure from him then he might not be so stubborn about his contract. If in last years draft we could have moved up a few spots and gotten Jeff Otah,Sam Baker,or just drafted Duane Brown we would have someone who could push Starks and give the FO more leverage in the contract negotiations.Otah,Baker,and Brown all had descent rookie seasons so I think it is fair to assume that they could push Starks for time as it is now we have little depth at the position.I think hills will be a solid player for us in time but maybe more as a right tackle.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-23-2009, 09:53 PM
If in last years draft we could have moved up a few spots and gotten Jeff Otah,Sam Baker,or just drafted Duane Brown we would have someone who could push Starks .

The starting LT in Cincinatti this year will be Anthony Collins, not Andre Smith. He was still on the board when we drafted Bruce Davis last year. Collins could have pushed Starks out the door if we drafted him instead of Davis.

mulldog24
05-23-2009, 10:17 PM
The starting LT in Cincinatti this year will be Anthony Collins, not Andre Smith. He was still on the board when we drafted Bruce Davis last year. Collins could have pushed Starks out the door if we drafted him instead of Davis.

I agree 100%! Collins had a good year and is a solid player.:thumbsup:

Steely McSmash
05-23-2009, 11:24 PM
Definitely a head scratcher situation.

I'm not sure who in the FO thinks about Starks as a security blanket, but someone did apparently enough to transition player him last year with the intention of signing a long term deal. Starks put 2 and 2 together and didn't take fair value for his services since he was already guaranteed to be overpaid.

The Steelers apparently learned nothing from that since they did it again this year for even more guaranteed money. I don't think the team realizstically expects to sign him. I think they're just saying that to cover themselves. Basically they played it conservatively and these are the consequences.

My guess is that Starks wants to see like a 5 year deal with a 20M bonus or so to sign a long term deal. Since the FO does not see him as the long term solution at Tackle I would think they're thinking shorter term and Max is content to collect the money from some other team or the Steelers next offseason.

I think that there is a silver lining to the situation however. Next year there are a lot of key guys up for contracts next year. Overpaying Starks this year basically builds in some cap room next year to sign some guys who are more important.

Starks's line about being more important than Harrison is ridiculous. Perhaps this is his oblique way of saying not to believe what the FO says, particularly that they have no intention of actually signing him to a deal that makes sense for Starks.

paw-n-maul-u
05-24-2009, 01:47 AM
The starting LT in Cincinatti this year will be Anthony Collins, not Andre Smith. He was still on the board when we drafted Bruce Davis last year. Collins could have pushed Starks out the door if we drafted him instead of Davis.

all you ever do is look back and play Madden with what the Steelers COULD have done, ... there were A LOT of players on the board when Bruce Davis was drafted ... you are so subtle with you emoticons referencing how "rational" steeler fans don't question the front office. .... you do it so much that it almost becomes "your thing" ... you are "the fire guy" :chuckle:

You expect me to believe that just because you probably read some ESPN or NFL.com article or insider James Walker blog yada yada that Andre Smith is going to be a 50+ million dollar RIGHT tackle.

Playing GM in your own madden fantasy land is fun ... you could call it gonzo world! :willy::willy: and sure, everyone has their own opinions ... but to make trusting steelers brass the butt of a joke just sounds irrational, along with many other things. ... I will forever give the benefit of the doubt to 6>5 ... what else can you do?

tony hipchest
05-24-2009, 02:03 AM
c'mon.

when it comes to starks it is obvious the steelers are tryin to catch a fallin sword. even their front office knows it.

at this point i would almost rather run the risk of losin w/o him than winning with him.

he is a douchebag who i feel has held this team hostage more than any player i can ever remember.

personally, i want a "player" on the left side... not a glorified security blanket.

why a player like jon runyan isnt a 1-2 year stop gap for half the price, beats me.

Aussie_steeler
05-24-2009, 02:35 AM
I just see too many quality players who will be negotiating new contracts in the near future. The FO cant afford to pay everyone of them what they are asking and unfortunately some will be casualties.

Obviously they are negotiating with him, which means he is at the front of the queue now.

To me it seems like Starks is playing his hand a little wrong in this situation. I think the FO might just call his bluff and let him walk at the end of this season.

steelreserve
05-24-2009, 03:22 AM
If only you could cut a guy who you put the franchise tag on and not owe him anything. There are probably 30 tackles out there who are as good or better than him, and many would play for half the price. Even Essex would not be that big f a step down ,and for 1/8 the money.

Seriously, I hope Starks tears both his ACLs on the last play of the Super Bowl and suffers a dick injury, and then let's see where his big bad self gets with his huge contract demands and high opinion of himself, except journeyman backup for the Browns in two seasons and a role in a Viagra commercial, except his dick still doesn't work.

AllD
05-24-2009, 08:16 AM
The FO wanted to keep the line intact because its play should evolve into a better total package.

Starks might just negotiate his way onto a 6-10 team next year and hate his job.

paw-n-maul-u
05-24-2009, 09:47 AM
He's got us by the balls!

ricksteelers55
05-24-2009, 02:27 PM
Is it possible to withdraw the Franchise Tag and let him walk before mid-july ? Let's say we find someone in the camp like for example Trai Essex that can play LT as good as Max.

Psyychoward86
05-24-2009, 06:36 PM
If only you could cut a guy who you put the franchise tag on and not owe him anything. There are probably 30 tackles out there who are as good or better than him, and many would play for half the price. Even Essex would not be that big f a step down ,and for 1/8 the money.

Seriously, I hope Starks tears both his ACLs on the last play of the Super Bowl and suffers a dick injury, and then let's see where his big bad self gets with his huge contract demands and high opinion of himself, except journeyman backup for the Browns in two seasons and a role in a Viagra commercial, except his dick still doesn't work.

LOL

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-24-2009, 08:19 PM
why a player like jon runyan isnt a 1-2 year stop gap for half the price, beats me.

Runyan is coming off injury and even a healthy Jon Runyan doesnt have the best feet to play LT. I wonder what the Jags paid Tra Thomas, as he is a guy I thought could be a stop gap for a couple season (Which the Jags seem to think too).

I'd have even wanted Kevin Schaffer or John St. Clair for a couple seasons, if we hadnt given Starks $8.5 million this year. Now the guy thinks his negotiations should be of the same priority at Harrison???? I said Starks would get lazy if he got a long term deal and I still believe it.

GBMelBlount
05-25-2009, 06:37 AM
all you ever do is look back and play Madden with what the Steelers COULD have done, ... there were A LOT of players on the board when Bruce Davis was drafted ... you are so subtle with you emoticons referencing how "rational" steeler fans don't question the front office. .... you do it so much that it almost becomes "your thing" ... you are "the fire guy" :chuckle:

Playing GM in your own madden fantasy land is fun ... you could call it gonzo world! :willy::willy: and sure, everyone has their own opinions ... but to make trusting steelers brass the butt of a joke just sounds irrational, along with many other things. ... I will forever give the benefit of the doubt to 6>5 ... what else can you do?

This Starks fiasco was easily avoidable and is a result of terrible long term planning by the FO.

If El-Gonzo's posts reflect a little sarcasm or poke fun at the FO (and it's followers), I have no problem with that as again, this situation was completely avoidable and irritates the hell out of me too. :thumbsup:

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-25-2009, 06:50 AM
This Starks fiasco was easily avoidable and is a result of terrible long term planning by the FO.

If El-Gonzo's posts reflect a little sarcasm or poke fun at the FO (and it's followers), I have no problem with that as again, this situation was completely avoidable and irritates the hell out of me too. :thumbsup:

Yeah, I just get a kick out of posters that blindly trust the front office decisions and tell posters "the FO knows what they are doing.....I trust them more than some poster on a message board", but when something happens they dont agree with, they find it OK to complain.

There are a lot of fans and posters here that wish the O line was addressed in the past 3 drafts with some urgency and now we are seeing the fallout from not doing so.

More than anything I hope Starks does not get a long term deal (but I think he will) and I hope this is his last year in B&G. In his 5 seasons he hasnt proven he could hold the Jockstrap of guys like Tunch Ilkin, Brendan Stai or Justin Strelczyk........and while those guys were decent performers, none of them ever got or deserved top 5 lineman money.

Steely McSmash
05-25-2009, 08:17 AM
Is it possible to withdraw the Franchise Tag and let him walk before mid-july ? .

Not possible unfortunately...

steelreserve
05-26-2009, 02:26 PM
Runyan is coming off injury and even a healthy Jon Runyan doesnt have the best feet to play LT. I wonder what the Jags paid Tra Thomas, as he is a guy I thought could be a stop gap for a couple season (Which the Jags seem to think too).

The thing I can't stand is the reaction you get if you suggest any replacement for Starks other than a $10-million-a-year Pro Bowler.

Some older veteran like Runyan? "OMG, HE'S WASHED UP, DO YOU REALLY WANT HIM PROTECTING OUR $120 MILLION INVESTMENTS BLIND SIDE"

A decent player, but with dependability questions like Marvel Smith? "OMG, HE'LL JUST GET HURT AND THEN WHO'LL BE PROTECTING OUR $120 MILLION INVESTMENTS BLIND SIDE"

Some OK but half-tested journeyman? ""OMG, DO YOU REALLY WANT HIM PROTECTING OUR $120 MILLION INVESTMENTS BLIND SIDE"

But the thing is, dude ... having Starks isn't really any better than those scenarios. He's not that good. He's OK, but really no better than an unproven journeyman himself.

There are very few tackles in the league that I could look at and say, "You know, Max Starks is going to consistently outperform that guy by so far that I wouldn't feel comfortable taking my chances with him." The bar is pretty low for anyone new we'd bring in.

revefsreleets
05-26-2009, 03:46 PM
A) Starks franchise tag is and was insurance. If you don't like paying insurance premiums (and who does?), then you shouldn't like paying all this money for Starks. BUT what if we didn't have him last year? Insurance sucks UNLESS you have an accident. The premium paid out last year, for better or worse.
B) He's upset at Harrison's deal? Then why doesn't he sign a similar one himself? Harrison's deal was not really that bad for the Steelers. Starks could and should sign an incentive laden contract that COULD make him the highest paid LT in football if he hits certain benchmarks. If he sucks as bad as the haters say, he'll never hit those marks and his compensation will suffer. If he DOES hit his marks, he's the real deal, and it's money well spent.
C) Why does this always come down to "us vs. them" in re the front office decisions? Did Starks NOT play LT on the SB winning Steelers last year? In fact, did he NOT plat RT on the SB winning '05 Steelers? The guy can play some tackle in the NFL, and the Steelers know this. If the fans don't, who cares?

steelreserve
05-26-2009, 04:36 PM
C) Why does this always come down to "us vs. them" in re the front office decisions? Did Starks NOT play LT on the SB winning Steelers last year? In fact, did he NOT plat RT on the SB winning '05 Steelers? The guy can play some tackle in the NFL, and the Steelers know this. If the fans don't, who cares?

I'm not disagreeing with most of what you said, except I feel the need to point out that there seems to be a faction on here who thinks that because our team won the Super Bowl, every player is great and nothing should be questioned. Not saying you are part of that, just this post reminded me of it.

But no, winning the Super Bowl does not mean there's no room for improvement. Let's face it, our winning it all last year was more in spite of the line than because of it, and the same can be said of the running game. For that matter, Maddox and Duce Staley got SB rings with us in '05, and Carey Davis got one this year. Does that mean we can't do better at those positions? No way.

Starks is probably better than those specific guys, but really all he's proved is that he's serviceable. As for playing on a Super Bowl winner, he happened to be in the right place at the right time. I don't think he was an important contributor to either championship, just barely good enough to hold down the fort. That's not worth this kind of money or the havoc it wreaks on our salary structure.

Dino 6 Rings
05-26-2009, 04:50 PM
I really wish we would have taken a tackle in one of the drafts the last 2 years and let his sorry but walk!!!!!!!!!:banging::mad:

Which Tackle would you rather have over Timmons and Mendenhall?

revefsreleets
05-26-2009, 05:07 PM
Starks has TWO rings.

Starting at two positions.

On two separate SB winning teams.

Happy accident? I doubt it...the kid has some talent, or else we'd cut him and stop offering franchise tags. Sorry, that's the harsh reality.

steelreserve
05-26-2009, 05:40 PM
Starks has TWO rings.

Starting at two positions.

On two separate SB winning teams.

Happy accident? I doubt it...the kid has some talent, or else we'd cut him and stop offering franchise tags. Sorry, that's the harsh reality.

I think the harsh reality is that we're paying him more than he's worth because we're thin at tackle and don't know what else to do.

Starks hasn't even won a starting job here; he's been beaten out at RT by a no-name and then backed into a starting job at LT by default because of injuries. I can't even say he's filled in admirably -- just OK.

Probably a dozen and half star players around him worked their asses off and played out of their minds to win the Super Bowl ... Starks doesn't deserve any extra credit just because he didn't make a fool of himself. Fact is, we probably could've won it without him, which is originally what the plan was.

madtowndrunkard
05-26-2009, 10:52 PM
Not possible unfortunately...


I thought that we could cut him? Starks will be lucky to get half that money in FA.

If I'm the FO I'd cut him right now, if that's an option. If not then try like heck to trade him....if that doesn't work...then fire the idiot who's given Max Starks over $16million the last two seasons.

How can you mishandle a player this badly? This is a joke. I can understand drafting a bust, or getting screwed by signing a player after he plays great, only to see him suck later...that happens.....This is just a joke. How do you screw something like this up that badly? After we let Faneca go for what? :banging: This is DETROIT LION'ish... I could only see the Lions or Raiders making this sort of a miscalculation.

fansince'76
05-26-2009, 11:14 PM
OK, so now our FO apparently is of the same competence level as the FO of a team that is coming off an 0-16 season and hasn't won dick since the Eisenhower Administration and another team whose FO is in the iron grip of a senile old fool who still seems to think it's the 1970s and continues to run the team accordingly?

Just let me know when Lions break their 50-year+ championship drought and the Raiders break their 25-year+ championship drought, 'kay?

Some people REALLY need to get a grip. :coffee:

Preacher
05-26-2009, 11:52 PM
Come on people.

Once again, a one year deal to keep Starks while we fix the rest of the line is ok by me. What I DONT want is two people on a line learning the schemes. A lot of Ben's injuries last year seemed to come not because of bad players, but bad playing. They didn't know the scheming. Once that changed, the line got a bit better. Now we have someone to come in and take over RG hopefully, let him get set, then deal with LT next year. If Starks wants to sign a 2 or 3 year deal, that is great as it gives us that much longer to fix the rest of the line plus the D line. If not, then LT moves up on the priority list.

It isn't that the FO doesn't know what they are doing, it is that they have a much broader view than most of us. We tend to either see 1. The narrow problem of today at one position or 2. the team as a whole.

The FO has been very adept at seeing the team as a whole and into the future. THAT is why I trust them. Mistakes can only be called mistakes in hindsight as we don't know what is developing right now.

THAT is why I say, trust the FO. Not because they are innerrant, but because errors and all, they have the long term view and plan that seems to work.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-27-2009, 09:55 AM
The thing I can't stand is the reaction you get if you suggest any replacement for Starks other than a $10-million-a-year Pro Bowler.

Some older veteran like Runyan? "OMG, HE'S WASHED UP, DO YOU REALLY WANT HIM PROTECTING OUR $120 MILLION INVESTMENTS BLIND SIDE"

A decent player, but with dependability questions like Marvel Smith? "OMG, HE'LL JUST GET HURT AND THEN WHO'LL BE PROTECTING OUR $120 MILLION INVESTMENTS BLIND SIDE"

Some OK but half-tested journeyman? ""OMG, DO YOU REALLY WANT HIM PROTECTING OUR $120 MILLION INVESTMENTS BLIND SIDE"

But the thing is, dude ... having Starks isn't really any better than those scenarios. He's not that good. He's OK, but really no better than an unproven journeyman himself.

.

Steelreserve, I have no problem with a veteran to replace Starks. I openly wished for Tra Thomas, John StClair and Kevin Schaffer once released. I think they are all better and less expensive than Starks.

Jon Runyan is a 14 year veteran coming off microfracture surgery this offseason and has skills suited to RT position, not LT. That is the only reason I didn't want Runyan.

steelreserve
05-27-2009, 10:54 AM
OK, so now our FO apparently is of the same competence level as the FO of a team that is coming off an 0-16 season and hasn't won dick since the Eisenhower Administration and another team whose FO is in the iron grip of a senile old fool who still seems to think it's the 1970s and continues to run the team accordingly?

Since when is criticizing the FO over one big contract mistake the same as equating them with the Lions and Raiders? You can still mess up even if you usually know what you're doing ... and when you do, your other successes shouldn't make your failures immune from criticism.

Let me put it this way: With one Max Starks contract, we'll probably make it. If we had two Max Starks contracts, the team would start to erode. So we've used up our margin for error on this Bozo, which I don't see how anyone is supposed to like.

fansince'76
05-27-2009, 11:10 AM
Since when is criticizing the FO over one big contract mistake the same as equating them with the Lions and Raiders?

This is DETROIT LION'ish... I could only see the Lions or Raiders making this sort of a miscalculation.

I don't know, maybe you should ask the person who made the comparison.


You can still mess up even if you usually know what you're doing ... and when you do, your other successes shouldn't make your failures immune from criticism.

By the same token, one misstep shouldn't draw a comparison of any kind to probably the two most hapless and clueless FOs in the league either.

Let me put it this way: With one Max Starks contract, we'll probably make it. If we had two Max Starks contracts, the team would start to erode. So we've used up our margin for error on this Bozo, which I don't see how anyone is supposed to like.

I never said I liked the situation either.

....I'm getting tired of watching a mediocre player effectively hold this team hostage. Time to let him walk once this next season is over.

steelreserve
05-27-2009, 11:22 AM
Steelreserve, I have no problem with a veteran to replace Starks. I openly wished for Tra Thomas, John StClair and Kevin Schaffer once released. I think they are all better and less expensive than Starks.

Jon Runyan is a 14 year veteran coming off microfracture surgery this offseason and has skills suited to RT position, not LT. That is the only reason I didn't want Runyan.

See, now that's a good reason.

And I didn't mean you were the one saying those things; it was more of a general cloud of bitching that arises every time one suggests we could've found somebody other than Starks to play left tackle. They demand to know who else could do the job, and no matter who it is, they'll either say he's too washed up to trust or too inexperienced to trust. Never mind that Starks' play has been roughly on par with a declining veteran or an untested journeyman to begin with -- nothing less than a 25-year-old perennial Pro Bowler will do as a replacement.

steelreserve
05-27-2009, 11:27 AM
I don't know, maybe you should ask the person who made the comparison.

By the same token, one misstep shouldn't draw a comparison of any kind to probably the two most hapless and clueless FOs in the league either.

I never said I liked the situation either.

Oh. I must've skipped over that one. I didn't realize someone had actually gone and made such a comparison; I thought your post was just a general "you're all haters for criticizing the front office" kind of rant. So I stand corrected, and that was a pretty dumb comparison for that guy to make.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-27-2009, 11:51 AM
See, now that's a good reason.

And I didn't mean you were the one saying those things; it was more of a general cloud of bitching that arises every time one suggests we could've found somebody other than Starks to play left tackle. They demand to know who else could do the job, and no matter who it is, they'll either say he's too washed up to trust or too inexperienced to trust. Never mind that Starks' play has been roughly on par with a declining veteran or an untested journeyman to begin with -- nothing less than a 25-year-old perennial Pro Bowler will do as a replacement.

OK, I thought that you were categorizing me just because I didnt think Runyan was the right answer.

I agree completely with you that Starks has underperformed since the day he was drafted. He got the starters job in 05 because Oliver Ross left and he was next in line. He then proceeded to lose his job 2 seasons in a row to Willie Colon and only got to start because of injuries.

The rationale that Starks is good because he started on a super bowl winning team is just silly. OT Tony Jones has 2 super bowl rings with the Broncos and Harry Swayne has 3 (2 with the Broncos and 1 with the Ravens) ...they were good, but not worthy of top 5 in the NFL salary.

revefsreleets
05-27-2009, 11:52 AM
Problem is, if this is such a big mistake, why have the Steelers gone and done it twice?

revefsreleets
05-27-2009, 11:56 AM
The rationale that Starks is good because he started on a super bowl winning team is just silly. OT Tony Jones has 2 super bowl rings with the Broncos and Harry Swayne has 3 (2 with the Broncos and 1 with the Ravens) ...they were good, but not worthy of top 5 in the NFL salary.


Now THAT is interesting. I remember getting into a heated discussion of the Browns old line versus the Steelers current line, and some of the Browns linemen were lauded as being quality players simply because they played on Super Bowl teams.

Very interesting...so it's situational. SOME lineman are made better by being starters on Super Bowl teams, while some are not...

steelreserve
05-27-2009, 12:05 PM
Problem is, if this is such a big mistake, why have the Steelers gone and done it twice?

Because they're over a barrel if you ask me, and unwilling to take what they perceive as a big chance on someone else.

And also, I think a lot of it has to do with us not wanting to give up our rights to him, but we can't sign him to a reasonable contract because he thinks he's worth a lot more than his play has justified. So the franchise tag is what we end up doing, because a one-year stupid contract is not as bad as a five-year stupid contract.

And then after the first franchise tag, Starks complicated things by not playing well enough that we wanted to lock him up at a pretty high salary, but not playing poorly enough that we think he's a bum who's never going to live up to his potential. And he continues to make matters more difficult with his own high opinion of himself as a superstar-in-waiting, with the accordant diva contract expectations.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-27-2009, 12:09 PM
Now THAT is interesting. I remember getting into a heated discussion of the Browns old line versus the Steelers current line, and some of the Browns linemen were lauded as being quality players simply because they played on Super Bowl teams.

Very interesting...so it's situational. SOME lineman are made better by being starters on Super Bowl teams, while some are not...

No, you only choose selective statistics or cases to further your arguement or point of view. Your main goal in most "discussions" is to win a debate at any costs.

I on the other hand am more concerned with discussing players and teams as they are and not trying to find some stat that can further my arguement.

I believe some of the guys on those browns teams you refer to were Ross Verba, Jeff Faine, Shaun O Hara. To me and most football fans, those are and were solid offensive linemen, no matter if they won a Super Bowl or not.

Tony Jones and Harry Swayne were also solid offensive linemen, no matter how many super bowls they won. Some would say Dwight Stevenson was the best Center of the 80's and yes even better than Dirt Dawson, but alas he never won a super bowl.........so somehow because Justin Hartwig has a super bowl win, he is better???:screwy:

The fact is, that Starks is average at best. He lost his job for 2 seasons to Colon at RT and has been tagged for 2 seasons because the Steelers have failed to draft a replacement for him. He is sadly the best option at LT, because they never drafted Tony Ugoh a few years ago, nor Anthony Collins last year and again no OT's this year.

revefsreleets
05-27-2009, 12:44 PM
I see, I see...when you post stats that support your assertions, it's a good thing, and when I post stats that support my assertions, it's a bad thing, ostensibly because your arguments are so much more valid and meaningful than mine.

Makes about as much sense as anything posted on these boards, like you saying that 3rd and long is achieved more easily and at a higher rate than 3rd and short, when EVERY shred of statistical evidence and data shows the complete opposite, not to mention that it's a simple common sense equation.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-27-2009, 03:55 PM
I see, I see...when you post stats that support your assertions, it's a good thing, and when I post stats that support my assertions, it's a bad thing, .

No, when I post an opinion that Max Starks is an average to below average offensive tackle ....or that Jeff Faine, Ross Verba or Shaun O Hara are good offensive linemen (based on watching them play)..............you search for statistics to show contrary, just because you seemingly like to argue.

I dont come to this board to argue, I come to try and have interesting and insightful discussions with fellow Steeler fans. Sometimes the search for interesting discussions, unfortunately gets hijacked. :coffee:

revefsreleets
05-28-2009, 09:12 AM
Woah! That asserts that I think Starks is a good offensive lineman! Let's not go that far!

He's average. Just like Verba or some of the other chumps the Browns had playing OL. Faine BECAME a good lineman, later. Let's call and ace an ace and a spade a spade...your original argument was that Arians had success in Cleveland because he had a decent line, and I argued that the line was shitty. And it was. You then pointed out to me that some of those lineman were actually decent because they played on Super Bowl teams, which WAS a valid argument wehn you made it (according to you) but somehow became invalid whan I later used the same type of reasoning , albeit in a more peripheral way.

This was, at it's core, yet another one of your attacks on Arians.

Interesting to see you glossing over the 3rd and short thing, though...