PDA

View Full Version : Why have back up QBs?


stiller39
12-20-2011, 02:07 PM
Why do we have Charlie Batch and Dennis Dixon on the squad?
Apparently they are not trusted enough by our coaching staff to get the job done.
Our elite QB is hobbled with a high ankle sprain which affects his ability to move, scramble, and throw which when combined make him a very special QB. Our coaching staff decide to start him with his mobility severely limited over Charlie Batch, and Dennis Dixon. Batch has won for us... look at our start with out BB last year. DD almost beat the Crows last year. Are they, at 100 percent health that much worse than a hobbled BB??? A healthy BB makes those throws last nite for completions instead of interceptions and we win.... Did our coaches give us the best chance to win that game last nite?

SteelBlaze1
12-20-2011, 02:33 PM
I agree...I think what we saw last night is a testiment to just how bad our backups are. Shall we draft a QB next year?

StainlessStill
12-20-2011, 02:41 PM
Everyone needs to STFU and back up. This was the ONLY thing to do. We HAD to go all in for this game, regardless of the outcome. We put our best lineup on the field last night, PERIOD. In hindsight, it's pretty damn easy to say afterwards that it was a mistake to play Ben when beforehand everyone was all in praise "Toughest QB in the league! Guys a warrior! Homefield here we come!"

STFU.We lost. Total team effort. We'll get back on track. We're in the MF'ing playoffs.

gloydfan
12-20-2011, 02:51 PM
Yea, what he said...

JCPsteelers
12-20-2011, 02:56 PM
There's hardly 16 good QBs in a 32 team league. Its not surprising we don't have a good backup.


Saying that I do think we need to get a college guy in the draft this year and start developing him.

Hines0wnz
12-20-2011, 02:57 PM
Everyone needs to STFU and back up. This was the ONLY thing to do. We HAD to go all in for this game, regardless of the outcome. We put our best lineup on the field last night, PERIOD. In hindsight, it's pretty damn easy to say afterwards that it was a mistake to play Ben when beforehand everyone was all in praise "Toughest QB in the league! Guys a warrior! Homefield here we come!"

STFU.We lost. Total team effort. We'll get back on track. We're in the MF'ing playoffs.

This

Kanata-Steeler
12-20-2011, 04:16 PM
That is a good question though, lets ask Tomlin and Rooney why they bother having backup QB's. ?
I would hazard a guess that if your #1 Franchise QB is injured ?, then ya, that's why you have backup QB's.
-right !
I wish I knew. -Lol

fer522
12-20-2011, 04:20 PM
Everyone needs to STFU and back up. This was the ONLY thing to do. We HAD to go all in for this game, regardless of the outcome. We put our best lineup on the field last night, PERIOD. In hindsight, it's pretty damn easy to say afterwards that it was a mistake to play Ben when beforehand everyone was all in praise "Toughest QB in the league! Guys a warrior! Homefield here we come!"

STFU.We lost. Total team effort. We'll get back on track. We're in the MF'ing playoffs.
relax kid you're gonna blow a gasket

steve314
12-20-2011, 04:37 PM
That is a good question though, lets ask Tomlin and Rooney why they bother having backup QB's. ?
I would hazard a guess that if your #1 Franchise QB is injured ?, then ya, that's why you have backup QB's.
-right !
I wish I knew. -Lol

Yes, fine to start Ben, but if there are 2 interceptions in the first half likely affected by the injury then why not switch at halftime? Halftime adjustments.

StainlessStill
12-20-2011, 04:38 PM
fer, dude, my gasket has been blown for YEARS. Too late.:tt04:

stb_steeler
12-20-2011, 05:00 PM
Everyone needs to STFU and back up. This was the ONLY thing to do. We HAD to go all in for this game, regardless of the outcome. We put our best lineup on the field last night, PERIOD. In hindsight, it's pretty damn easy to say afterwards that it was a mistake to play Ben when beforehand everyone was all in praise "Toughest QB in the league! Guys a warrior! Homefield here we come!"

STFU.We lost. Total team effort. We'll get back on track. We're in the MF'ing playoffs.

Easy bro......some here just dont get it......:wink02:

Atlanta Dan
12-20-2011, 05:09 PM
If your head coach insists on keeping the significantly injured franchise QB in the game once there is no chance of victory and that QB is being sacked repeatedly it is a legitimate question

There is no good reason Roethlisberger was left out there with Batch & Dixon standing by except as an indication of Tomlin's stubborn streak, which has from time to time been his greatest weakness as a coach

Danny136200
12-20-2011, 08:04 PM
Everyone needs to STFU and back up. This was the ONLY thing to do. We HAD to go all in for this game, regardless of the outcome. We put our best lineup on the field last night, PERIOD. In hindsight, it's pretty damn easy to say afterwards that it was a mistake to play Ben when beforehand everyone was all in praise "Toughest QB in the league! Guys a warrior! Homefield here we come!"

STFU.We lost. Total team effort. We'll get back on track. We're in the MF'ing playoffs.

Seconded

Bayz101
12-20-2011, 08:44 PM
With what was at stake, the correct decisions we're made, regardless of the outcome.

steve314
12-21-2011, 03:59 AM
If your head coach insists on keeping the significantly injured franchise QB in the game once there is no chance of victory and that QB is being sacked repeatedly it is a legitimate question


Good point. No reason to leave him in at the end of the game.

FanSince72
12-21-2011, 08:42 AM
I agree...I think what we saw last night is a testiment to just how bad our backups are. Shall we draft a QB next year?

I don't see that at all.

What I see is that Tomlin and Arians have bought into the whole "Iron Man" mythology about Ben and even THEY think he wears an "S" under his jersey.

Don't forget that Batch started last year and went 3-1 and almost went 4-0.
So how much could have changed in 14 months?

defence
12-21-2011, 08:53 AM
I don't see that at all.

What I see is that Tomlin and Arians have bought into the whole "Iron Man" mythology about Ben and even THEY think he wears an "S" under his jersey.

Don't forget that Batch started last year and went 3-1 and almost went 4-0.
So how much could have changed in 14 months?

Let's put this Charlie batch thing to rest!!! Obviously the coaches thought ben with one leg is better than a healthy batch!! Quite honestly they are correct!! Face it folks; if leftwich was not injured; where do u think batch would be!! Not on the steelers roster or any nfl team for that matter!!! This game didn't fall on one person; but the whole team should share responsibility in the loss because they all stunk; with the exception of troy; he was a madman on a mission!! Chalk it up; move on and let's get these guys ready for what really matters; another run at the superbowl!!!

MasterOfPuppets
12-21-2011, 12:27 PM
Why do we have Charlie Batch and Dennis Dixon on the squad?
Apparently they are not trusted enough by our coaching staff to get the job done.
Our elite QB is hobbled with a high ankle sprain which affects his ability to move, scramble, and throw which when combined make him a very special QB. Our coaching staff decide to start him with his mobility severely limited over Charlie Batch, and Dennis Dixon. Batch has won for us... look at our start with out BB last year. DD almost beat the Crows last year. Are they, at 100 percent health that much worse than a hobbled BB??? A healthy BB makes those throws last nite for completions instead of interceptions and we win.... Did our coaches give us the best chance to win that game last nite?
and would you have posted this had the steelers won ...no....sure is great having the luxury of being an "after the fact" critic huh ?

MasterOfPuppets
12-21-2011, 12:37 PM
[QUOTE=FanSince72;973681
Don't forget that Batch started last year and went 3-1 and almost went 4-0.
So how much could have changed in 14 months?[/QUOTE]

lets also not forget that dennis dixon started 2 of those 4 games which accounted for 2 of those 3 wins. of course batch did come into the 2nd game after dixon was injured , but do you really think charlies 5-11 for 25 yds deserves much credit for the win ?
batch was 1-1...lets keep it real guys.

stiller39
12-21-2011, 01:34 PM
Mike Bires had some good insight on this subject in his article today.... Maybe stainless could tell him to shut up too.

FanSince72
12-21-2011, 01:58 PM
lets also not forget that dennis dixon started 2 of those 4 games which accounted for 2 of those 3 wins. of course batch did come into the 2nd game after dixon was injured , but do you really think charlies 5-11 for 25 yds deserves much credit for the win ?
batch was 1-1...lets keep it real guys.

Maybe so, but I think it was pretty obvious after a few series that Ben was not going to be doing any superhero stuff and it was basically just lather, rinse, repeat every time he was in there.

Batch or Dixon would have represented two players with good legs so that at least the THREAT of a run, or a rollout was there.
With Ben that simply wasn't going to happen and once Harbaugh realized that, it was pretty simple for him from that point on.

Having a tough QB is one thing but having a martyr is something altogether different and something we definitely didn't need.
If he can't move, he can't "be Ben" and leaving him in was pointless.
I don't think Batch or Dixon could have done any worse (and I was thinking that loooooong before the game was over)..

ricardisimo
12-21-2011, 02:56 PM
and would you have posted this had the steelers won ...no....sure is great having the luxury of being an "after the fact" critic huh ?
True enough, but as long as we're on hypotheticals, how would you be reacting right now if his left ankle ligaments had been completely severed late in the fourth on yet another sack? Should he have started? Maybe, maybe not. I say yes. Should he have been playing in the 4th quarter? Absolutely not.

Darkstorm05
12-21-2011, 03:18 PM
Just out of curiosity, why is there a double standard here? It seems a high percentage of members wanted Ben to play through the injuries, if there was any life left in him, no matter what. Why don't I see anyone calling for Pouncey to man up, or Woodley to shake it off and play? If a Ben who can't plant his foot is worth more than Batch and DD combined, surely a Pouncey who can't plant a foot is worth more than a single Legursky?

If it's a fact that playing the injured star over a healthy scrub is the right call, why are these others lounging on the sidelines?

Atlanta Dan
12-21-2011, 05:11 PM
True enough, but as long as we're on hypotheticals, how would you be reacting right now if his left ankle ligaments had been completely severed late in the fourth on yet another sack? Should he have started? Maybe, maybe not. I say yes. Should he have been playing in the 4th quarter? Absolutely not.

Dulac of the P-G agrees and lays the blame on Tomlin for not pulling Ben after the game was lost

Since most players presumably have too much pride to request to be taken out of a game if their injuries do not become worse, is it on Mike Tomlin for keeping Ben in for the duration of Monday night's game regardless of Ben wanting to stay in?

Gerry Dulac:
Without question. That's why he's the coach, why he's the boss. He's paid to make decisions that matter most, not the players. That is what's referred to as the inmates running the asylum. Tomlin is responsible for the big picture, the better good, and in a game with 5 minutes to go and the Steelers needing three possessions to win, he should have been out of the game. Especially the way the 49ers were coming after him. It's a different matter when he's healthy. Not when he's hobbled and can't move well enough to escape the pressure.

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/chats/gerry-dulac-chat

FanSince72
12-21-2011, 06:43 PM
Dulac of the P-G agrees and lays the blame on Tomlin for not pulling Ben after the game was lost

Since most players presumably have too much pride to request to be taken out of a game if their injuries do not become worse, is it on Mike Tomlin for keeping Ben in for the duration of Monday night's game regardless of Ben wanting to stay in?

Gerry Dulac:
Without question. That's why he's the coach, why he's the boss. He's paid to make decisions that matter most, not the players. That is what's referred to as the inmates running the asylum. Tomlin is responsible for the big picture, the better good, and in a game with 5 minutes to go and the Steelers needing three possessions to win, he should have been out of the game. Especially the way the 49ers were coming after him. It's a different matter when he's healthy. Not when he's hobbled and can't move well enough to escape the pressure.

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/chats/gerry-dulac-chat



With 5 minutes to go?

What difference would that have made?

If Dulac wants to make a point, he should have written that Ben should have been pulled after the first quarter.

THAT might have made a difference.

ricardisimo
12-21-2011, 07:05 PM
Just out of curiosity, why is there a double standard here? It seems a high percentage of members wanted Ben to play through the injuries, if there was any life left in him, no matter what. Why don't I see anyone calling for Pouncey to man up, or Woodley to shake it off and play? If a Ben who can't plant his foot is worth more than Batch and DD combined, surely a Pouncey who can't plant a foot is worth more than a single Legursky?

If it's a fact that playing the injured star over a healthy scrub is the right call, why are these others lounging on the sidelines?

For starters, the drop-off from Ben to Batch is much, much greater than from Pouncey to Lego. Secondly, Dan Marino proved you don't need legs at all to play QB effectively, just a strong arm and good eyes. Find me any other position on the field where you can say that. Maybe holder.

Atlanta Dan
12-21-2011, 07:09 PM
With 5 minutes to go?

What difference would that have made?

If Dulac wants to make a point, he should have written that Ben should have been pulled after the first quarter.

THAT might have made a difference.

Dulac's point is the cost-benefit of Roethlisberger continuing to play was changed once there was no longer any potential benefit of a win and the cost of additional injury was certainly not less and probably increased since the 49ers knew Ben had to pass after the lead went to 20-3. - nothing to gain and not having your franchise QB for the playoffs to lose at that point

Dulac is not saying Ben should have been pulled because he was ineffective - in fact Dulac supported going with Ben until the game was clearly lost and supports playing him again this weekend

If Ben does not play and we lose all hell would have broke lose.

Gerry Dulac:
I agree. And that's why I agreed with the decision to play him. Now, I say that understanding that the Steelers did not just decide to start him because the Ravens lost. They made the decision to start him long before the Ravens game. I have said all along that if Ben is healthy enough to play, he will play. If he is not, he won't. ...

Gerry how would you handle Ben for these last two regular season games?

Gerry Dulac:
There's no turning back now. You have to keep playing him if you want to have any chance of winning the division and maybe getting a first-round bye. Had they beaten the 49ers and had control of the division, I could see a situation where they dressed him but did not play him the last two games, certaintly at least one of the two. Now, I dont think they can afford to do that. ...

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/chats/gerry-dulac-chat

Hard to see 2 of the 3 contenders for the bye (New England, Houston and Baltimore) losing another game - so by winning out at best the Steelers are getting a home playoff game January 7-8 rather than a first round road game - given those odds better to have a healthier Ben on the road than banged up Ben at home.

For that reason I sit Ben for at least this Saturday

ricardisimo
12-21-2011, 07:09 PM
With 5 minutes to go?

What difference would that have made?

If Dulac wants to make a point, he should have written that Ben should have been pulled after the first quarter.

THAT might have made a difference.

What do you mean "what difference?" The difference between a Ben that could play next week and a Ben who could be lost for the season. Learn to read.

FanSince72
12-21-2011, 08:25 PM
What do you mean "what difference?" The difference between a Ben that could play next week and a Ben who could be lost for the season. Learn to read.

Yeah, I read it and I still have the same question.

What could possibly happen in the last five minutes that didn't already happen in the first fifty-five?

And like I said, if someone is going to bother to sit down and write an article, why focus on the waning minutes of a pointless effort when the REAL focus should have been on why Ben was in that game to begin with? Much of what has been posted here seems to revolve around the notion that Ben HAD to play or that it would have been foolish to keep him out and I have to wonder why.

If he was kept out of the game would that mean we might have lost?

We did that anyway!

And playing an entire game on a bum ankle can't have done wonders for that ankle. And being so disabled and ineffective and doing more to HURT the team than to help it can't have done wonders for Ben's psyche either. But hey, if a sportswriter wants to focus on the pros and cons of keeping him in for the last five minutes instead of looking at the bigger picture, who am I to say he's wrong?

Darkstorm05
12-21-2011, 08:36 PM
Secondly, Dan Marino proved you don't need legs at all to play QB effectively, just a strong arm and good eyes.


Pretty impressive Dan proved that once and for all. I guess nobody told Ben, though, because on a bum leg, he stunk.

ricardisimo
12-21-2011, 09:06 PM
Yeah, I read it and I still have the same question.

What could possibly happen in the last five minutes that didn't already happen in the first fifty-five?

And like I said, if someone is going to bother to sit down and write an article, why focus on the waning minutes of a pointless effort when the REAL focus should have been on why Ben was in that game to begin with? Much of what has been posted here seems to revolve around the notion that Ben HAD to play or that it would have been foolish to keep him out and I have to wonder why.

If he was kept out of the game would that mean we might have lost?

We did that anyway!

And playing an entire game on a bum ankle can't have done wonders for that ankle. And being so disabled and ineffective and doing more to HURT the team than to help it can't have done wonders for Ben's psyche either. But hey, if a sportswriter wants to focus on the pros and cons of keeping him in for the last five minutes instead of looking at the bigger picture, who am I to say he's wrong?
You're still not understanding the writer's point. Healthy or hurt, Ben was not going to win the game with five minutes left. And his line, which did a halfway decent job keeping him upright until the 4th quarter, suddenly could not stop anybody. He was being put in serious jeopardy. So why leave him in?

You start Ben because you believe he gives your team the best chance to win. You pull him in a blowout for the exact same reason: because you believe Ben gives your team the best chance to win.

FanSince72
12-21-2011, 09:25 PM
You're still not understanding the writer's point. Healthy or hurt, Ben was not going to win the game with five minutes left. And his line, which did a halfway decent job keeping him upright until the 4th quarter, suddenly could not stop anybody. He was being put in serious jeopardy. So why leave him in?

.

Fair enough.

I get what he means and he's probably right about the line not being able to stop anyone. I also get Ben's desire to stay in the game.

What I don't get is Tomlin not telling Ben that it isn't his choice, that he needs to sit down and he can fight another day. Maybe I'm just a little too frustrated over the idea of Tomlin not recognizing that Ben was useless out there with his leg in that condition and not doing anything about it earlier - when it might have made a difference instead of at the end when all he was worried about is Ben getting clobbered when he didn't have to.

I don't think I've felt this frustrated since San Diego stopped O'Donnell on 4th down back in '94. It's the same kind of: "Whaddya mean we lost?" kind of feeling.

Atlanta Dan
12-21-2011, 09:36 PM
Fair enough.

What I don't get is Tomlin not telling Ben that it isn't his choice, that he needs to sit down and he can fight another day. Maybe I'm just a little too frustrated over the idea of Tomlin not recognizing that Ben was useless out there with his leg in that condition and not doing anything about it earlier - when it might have made a difference instead of at the end when all he was worried about is Ben getting clobbered when he didn't have to.


Tomlin thought playing Ben was their best chance to win even with Ben's f**cked up ankle compared to Batch and Dixon - once Joe Montana in his prime could not win that game down 20-3 you pull Ben to fight another day

I agree with you the bulls**t is Tomlin being stubborn and not pulling Ben when the game was lost - Dulac agrees with both of us that is Tomlin's call regardless of what Ben claims he wants with regard to staying in the game

plenewken
12-22-2011, 05:47 AM
Fair enough.

I get what he means and he's probably right about the line not being able to stop anyone. I also get Ben's desire to stay in the game.

What I don't get is Tomlin not telling Ben that it isn't his choice, that he needs to sit down and he can fight another day. Maybe I'm just a little too frustrated over the idea of Tomlin not recognizing that Ben was useless out there with his leg in that condition and not doing anything about it earlier - when it might have made a difference instead of at the end when all he was worried about is Ben getting clobbered when he didn't have to.

I don't think I've felt this frustrated since San Diego stopped O'Donnell on 4th down back in '94. It's the same kind of: "Whaddya mean we lost?" kind of feeling.

What''s the most puzzling in my opinion is that nobody in the coaching staff seems to have considered the most important aspect which is HOW Ben plays. He's not a pocket passer and with the OL he has, he needs to move to get out of trouble. Plus, he's not really a great passer either so without 100% of his mechanics, we were asking for trouble.
It took me 3 series to realize that Ben couldn't move and pass accurately, how come it took them the whole friggin' game?
I predicted that the Steelers would lose in SFO, even before Ben was injured. I don't think the coaching staff gave the team the best chance to compete, by playing an crippled QB and a stupid playbook.

LayingTheWoodley56
12-22-2011, 11:05 AM
How can anyone sit here and say that our backups are terrible? Dixon and Batch led us to a combined 3-1 record last year without Ben, including two road wins and one against a Falcons team that ended up being pretty damn good. Batch also almost beat the Ravens to get us to 4-0. I understood their performances were average at best, but how many teams in this league could lose their franchise quarterback and win three out of four games. The answer is probably zero, or close to it. Also, don't forgot that we almost beat the Ravens in Baltimore with Dixon at the helm in 09.

That being said, Batch did not look good when he was in briefly against Cleveland, and no matter how capable he or Dixon may be the truth is that I'd rather have Ben at 50-60 percent over either of them at 100 percent. That game was as close to a must-win as you can get while still being assured a playoff spot, and we had to try to play our quarterback if we was willing and somewhat able. I think just about every team that has a franchise quarterback would have done the same thing.

FanSince72
12-22-2011, 11:15 AM
... I think just about every team that has a franchise quarterback would have done the same thing.

Yes, assuming that their franchise quarterback could do the things that made him a franchise quarterback.
But Ben's "franchise" trademark is his ability to move around, shake off tackles and extend plays - none of which he was able to do Monday night.

If doing an impersonation of a granite boulder was what you wanted to see, then Ben was the man for the job.
But if doing the things that make Ben who he is and worth his contract money was what you were looking for, then you were sadly disappointed.
So unless the entire training and coaching staff was completely unaware of the fact that Ben could barely walk (much less play), I'd say that putting him out there - franchise player or not - was the biggest miscalculation since Custer peeked over the hill and said,"No,they look friendly to me".

plenewken
12-22-2011, 11:28 AM
Yes, assuming that their franchise quarterback could do the things that made him a franchise quarterback.
But Ben's "franchise" trademark is his ability to move around, shake off tackles and extend plays - none of which he was able to do Monday night.

If doing an impersonation of a granite boulder was what you wanted to see, then Ben was the man for the job.
But if doing the things that make Ben who he is and worth his contract money was what you were looking for, then you were sadly disappointed.
So unless the entire training and coaching staff was completely unaware of the fact that Ben could barely walk (much less play), I'd say that putting him out there - franchise player or not - was the biggest miscalculation since Custer peeked over the hill and said,"No,they look friendly to me".

Great post. I couldn't have said it better.

stiller39
12-22-2011, 04:18 PM
Good insight for the Rams game... I agree


http://nfl.si.com/2011/12/21/steelers-must-consider-sitting-big-ben/

harrison'samonster
12-22-2011, 08:09 PM
So unless the entire training and coaching staff was completely unaware of the fact that Ben could barely walk (much less play), I'd say that putting him out there - franchise player or not - was the biggest miscalculation since Custer peeked over the hill and said,"No,they look friendly to me".

Exactly. I've got to be honest, before game day I thought Ben even though he was hurt gave us the best chance to win. When I saw him hobbling around in pre-game I was hoping he was just playing it up.

However, when I saw him hobbling around and he threw the first interception, I thought it was ok to give him a chance, but let's take him out of there.

Leaving him in there with no chance to protect himself was pretty bad and it definitely reveals the teams confidence in Batch and Dixon far more than their confidence in Roethlisberger.

BKAnthem
12-22-2011, 08:09 PM
It's stupid,stupid stupid for a team trying to win a Superbowl to put their already injured FRANCHISE QB at risk like that ...a playoff birth was not on the line and you have not one...but TWO decent backups on the bench...STUPID move by Tomlin

daubs57
12-23-2011, 07:50 AM
i am thinking that we need to get a back up qb that can fill in for ben when we need him batch, leftwich and dixon are not the answer

DanRooney
12-23-2011, 09:54 AM
Leftwich is a fine backup QB. I'd like us to grab another young guy to groom in the later rounds though. Dixon isn't worth a roster spot.

Curtain_of_Steel
12-23-2011, 11:48 AM
Batch and Dixon, more so Batch is not a true back up QB. He needs a walker to move around in the backfield. They shouldve been working with Dixon to be the back up if Ben went down.

No team is 3 or 4 deep at the QB position when your main backup goes down. Batch is not the answer.

harrison'samonster
12-23-2011, 01:38 PM
yeah, we've gotten caught in a bad spot. Dixon isn't the answer, Batch is getting too old. Leftwich is a good backup, but he's injured.

So I guess the only thing left is for Roethlisberger to play every snap.

ricardisimo
12-23-2011, 03:20 PM
It should have occurred to everyone by now that we will be taking a QB in next year's draft, as well as another punter... although hopefully not in the fourth round.

Bayz101
12-23-2011, 03:32 PM
Charlies a good backup, Ben's an elite top 5 quarterback and Arians is mentally challenged. That should end some discussions.

harrison'samonster
12-23-2011, 04:27 PM
I think over his career Charlie's been a great backup, but I don't think he has it anymore. Hopefully I'm wrong and Charlie is going to get his chance Sunday to prove it.

The only discussion going on about Arians' mental status is exactly how challenged he is. He is very challenged.

MasterOfPuppets
12-23-2011, 04:35 PM
It should have occurred to everyone by now that we will be taking a QB in next year's draft, as well as another punter... although hopefully not in the fourth round.
and a kicker ...squeezem sucks:doh:

Bayz101
12-23-2011, 04:47 PM
and a kicker ...squeezem sucks:doh:

That Pitt kicker looks good, and he's obviously played at Heinz, is he a Junior of Senior?