PDA

View Full Version : SI NFL Front Office Rankings


GoFor7
03-12-2013, 02:42 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130312/nfl-free-agents-front-offices/

The Steelers come in at No. 9:

9. Pittsburgh

As rules go, this one is easy to follow: Any franchise that has not endured consecutive playoff-less seasons since 1999-2000 deserves automatic inclusion among the top 12 best front office operations in the league. That's the neighborhood the Steelers have lived in the dozen years from 2001-2012 -- with five AFC title game trips and three Super Bowl berths in that span -- and that's why they start every season as a threat to win it all. Good coaching and a consistent approach by GM Kevin Colbert to the franchise's personnel philosophy are the hallmarks of the Steelers.

That said, the switch from Bruce Arians to Todd Haley at offensive coordinator didn't exactly pan out in 2012, and Pittsburgh seems to annually have salary cap issues that require contract restructuring and the eventual loss of some talented players. This year's expected departure of receiver Mike Wallace and the cap release of outside linebacker James Harrison are just two of the latest examples. Some within the league believe this will eventually catch up to Pittsburgh, and that a serious downturn is nearly inevitable. You can't re-do deals forever. Eventually the piper must be paid. Age and a salary squeeze might be closing in on the Steelers.

jacobo
03-12-2013, 02:43 PM
Sounds just about right.

GMU Steeler
03-12-2013, 02:45 PM
I'm not going to argue we're number one but it's silly to question the Arians to Haley move on one season especially a season where the team's starting QB got hurt. And we're not losing Wallace due to the cap. We're losing Wallace because Wallace wants considerably more money than he's worth.

GoFor7
03-12-2013, 02:49 PM
I'm not going to argue we're number one but it's silly to question the Arians to Haley move on one season especially a season where the team's starting QB got hurt. And we're not losing Wallace due to the cap. We're losing Wallace because Wallace wants considerably more money than he's worth.

But the point remains the Steelers are putting themselves in salary cap hell for the future. They try to squeeze one more year out of veterans instead of knowing when it's time to say goodbye.

GMU Steeler
03-12-2013, 02:51 PM
But the point remains the Steelers are putting themselves in salary cap hell for the future. They try to squeeze one more year out of veterans instead of knowing when it's time to say goodbye.

True that. DIdn't mean to imply Banks' point was without any merit but the reason we're not keeping him(Wallace) is more about his demands than anything.

SteelersCanada
03-12-2013, 02:54 PM
Grain of salt - it had Baltimore at number one. The same front office that paid an average Quarterback 120 million dollars. The same front office that, because of such a ludicrously stupid move, they're forced to let their top tier guys go and have to now rebuild.

Grain of salt.

Vis
03-12-2013, 03:05 PM
But the point remains the Steelers are putting themselves in salary cap hell for the future. They try to squeeze one more year out of veterans instead of knowing when it's time to say goodbye.


Might as well while there's a QB. Once Ben is gone we take our medicine.

Bane
03-12-2013, 03:07 PM
Grain of salt - it had Baltimore at number one. The same front office that paid an average Quarterback 120 million dollars. The same front office that, because of such a ludicrously stupid move, they're forced to let their top tier guys go and have to now rebuild.

Grain of salt.

Honestly, I can't disagree with Baltimore being at number high (whether they're number one or not, I'm not so sure). Despite Flacco's contract, Ozzy has been nothing short of amazing at drafting, signing free agents, and keeping strong talent on board all while fielding a perennial winner.

Besides, Flacco's cap number (this year, at least) isn't ridiculously high (roughly $6.75M, if I remember correctly?), and from what I've read, was designed as a three year contract that is supposed to be re-done after the third. I have no clue why they would tack those extra three on, however.

What I disagree with more, however, is San Francisco being so high, and the Steelers being as low as they have. San Fran had been awful for a long time, and have only become relevant in the past couple of years. Meanwhile, the Steelers have remained strong, only having one losing season and two .500 seasons, while racking up two Super Bowl victories and a third appearance since Kevin Colbert became G.M.

So, yeah. Give us number one! :tt04:

GoFor7
03-12-2013, 03:29 PM
Honestly, I can't disagree with Baltimore being at number high (whether they're number one or not, I'm not so sure). Despite Flacco's contract, Ozzy has been nothing short of amazing at drafting, signing free agents, and keeping strong talent on board all while fielding a perennial winner.

Besides, Flacco's cap number (this year, at least) isn't ridiculously high (roughly $6.75M, if I remember correctly?), and from what I've read, was designed as a three year contract that is supposed to be re-done after the third. I have no clue why they would tack those extra three on, however.

What I disagree with more, however, is San Francisco being so high, and the Steelers being as low as they have. San Fran had been awful for a long time, and have only become relevant in the past couple of years. Meanwhile, the Steelers have remained strong, only having one losing season and two .500 seasons, while racking up two Super Bowl victories and a third appearance since Kevin Colbert became G.M.

So, yeah. Give us number one! :tt04:

Read the second paragraph of the SI ranking. They were right to drop the Steelers because of those issues.

TRH
03-12-2013, 03:31 PM
it's hurts when you see a bitter rival be recognized on a higher level. But the fact is - for the last couple of years - its the truth.
Our FO, while still shrewd and smart, has made some bonehead moves, overpayments, and mistakes over the last couple of years. I'm hoping they start to rectify those things. I honestly don't believe we're higher than a "number 9" right now. Hard to disagree w/the article.