Summer Reading:
No cure for the summertime blues, at least that�s what paleo-rocker Eddie Cochran had to say, way before the now half-dead Who covered.� Countless others too no doubt and, football-wise, well, that�s surely true.� We�re in the doldrums just now, in some purgatory with spring�s draft behind and the annual crop inspection at Latrobe before.
Then again, summer does have its merit; long, hot days, warm, short nights, nearly naked women on every city street.� That�s all good and, when you�re bitching about the long haul to camp, consider that, effectively, you�re saying:� �Damn, I wish I were just 30-some days closer to dead.�
Who wants that?� Well, with or without actual, living material, writers have got to write (especially, but not limited to, those who get paid) and, if only to pull y�all back from the brink, here�re a couple items of note.�� Long time readers will find little new grist but more recent pilgrims may get a bit more to grind:
John Clayton has a pretty good article up at ESPN titled NFL is a league of trends.� As is often true, Mr. Clayton makes some interesting points though, as is typical in the gospel according to John, parsing any particular portion, that text traces a trajectory towards its end fitfully, as any firefly might flit through the night sky.� (In contrast, the style of his running mate LP is more direct, coming to its meaning like a night owl dropping on a titmouse).� To be brief, here are a few of the ten trends Mr. Clayton has spotted:
Safety issues:� It is here noted that (14) teams have made changes at FS, generally in the interest of upgrading speed at the position.� Further, (11) vet SS are still on the unemployment line, presumably because they just don�t have it like that.� As noted at ESPN, any number of teams are converting CB to FS; not noted there, but factually, hybrid FS/CB types were at premium in the draft too.� Between the Steelers selecting the Trojan Torpedo and the Colts picking Buckeye Mike, only one pure safety (Ken Hamlin) went off the boards.� However, in that interval (16 to 58 but generally in the 30�s), Andre Woolfolk, Nnmadi Asomugha, Charles Tillman, Rashean Mathis, Drayton Florence and Bryan Scott were removed; that�s (6) hybrids against (1) safety, as I recall, Sammy Davis and Eugene Wilson were the sole pure CB then drafted.�
In general, speed is of the essence and at least at FS, coverage ability is prized even (maybe) at the sacrifice of pure hitting ability.� Well, we know what the Steelers did; excluding a miracle cure for Logan, or Hope�s development, what they�ll have at FS is what they already have had.� Too bad, especially since for readers here, the �speed at safety� trend identified by Mr. Clayton is old news.� Consider this, available on-site some (16) months ago just past the Pats/Rams SB:
�The Pats
victory in New Orleans demonstrates the need for speed at the safety
position.� New England mixed coverage but, in general, the CB pressed and the
safeties came to hit.� CB are usually
the best athletes in any defensive secondary but in New England that is not
true.� Tebucky Jones is the best pure
athlete in that group with Law and Milloy just up the track.� On the other hand, Otis Smith was 37 on game
day; never a burner, Smith isn�t getting any faster.� Maybe, Otis had to press because he couldn�t run with the Rams
WR; he, and Law, could press because the NE safety tandem has the pure speed to
help over the top.� While Scott Shields
showed that speed means jack if you can�t tackle, at least in NO, those Pat
safeties dropped every receiver they hit.�
What to get the team that has everything, 10 February 2002
Issues at safety first drew Mr. Clayton�s notice; next came the nickel.� In a �Nickel for your thoughts�, it was revealed that this set was, generally, both the package of choice last year and, in some cases, a common base defense.� For example, Tennessee was in nickel about 66% of the time in 2002; Donald Mitchell had (9) starts and averaged about (55) plays per game.� Further, Mr. Clayton reports that at least (22) teams attempted to upgrade their 3rd and 4th CB slots.
It�s not clear whether or not the Steelers are among the numbered.� We can project Townsend as the 3rd CB; therefore, any unit upgrade will depend on when (or whether) Ike passes Poteat.� While long time readers here have had my view on the Steelers dime pack, others are directed to any number of articles taking up in September 2002 and passing through the Week in Review series, especially 10 and 11 of last season.� Evidently, the PS staff�s insistence on their dime bucked a larger trend while, revealing the headwaters of objection here:�
�On the D-side, the Stillers remain system-challenged in mounting a pass rush.� The OLB are the sack-kings here; the Stillers haven�t had a D-lineman with double-digit sacks since Keith Willis bowed out.� Bell may provide a necessary 3rd rush threat out of the LB corps but elsewhere around the league, the premium pass defenders are DL who can bring pressure and DB who can cover.�� Broadly, LB figure in a secondary role against the pass but here the LB are the premium Front 7 performers.� IMO, the Stillers are strong in the base but will have problems countering multi-WR sets.�� That could happen a lot; this season, both Cin-City and Cleveland figure to feature (3) WR packages as their base, or co-base, set.� So long as the Stillers �passing down� package removes Holmes, sits Bell, inserts Jones as the dime backer and lines up Porter and Gildon on the LOS, the advantage will rest with their opponents.� Further, teams with a pass receiving RB will get a pressure reprieve when the Stillers are forced to drop one of their LB in coverage.� As constituted, the Stillers must keep as many LB on the field as possible; if the B&G can develop a nickel pack with Porter and Bell as the LB, some (5) DB and (4) rushers then, IMO, they�ll have a chance.� However, since innovation has not been a feature of the Cowher Era, I expect the Stillers will have a lot of trouble countering diversified passing attacks, at least early on.�
Phantom�s Fearless Forecast, 3 September 2001
Italics were added to the original, which is now some (22) months past; Holmes and Jones, both long gone now, were mentioned there because they then figured.� Apparently, Tim Lewis has performed a similar lift; if we are to believe reports emanating from mini-camp, our D-coordinator has snatched the T-Bay nickel and currently is busy adapting that to his particular, against-the- (league-wide) grain personnel.� Purportedly, this set would remove KVO for Townsend but keep Hampton, Smith and all (4) starting LB on the field.� Well, it�s about time, past time in fact as:
�� Given the Steelers personnel, you�ve got to wonder why they ever use a 6-back set.� The Steelers don�t have (6) DB with coverage skills; it is questionable whether they have (5), or even (4).� Beyond that:
- The dime takes their best stuffer, Hampton, and their brand new cover ILB, Farrior, off the field.� Very strange: in the 2001 draft, the Steelers passed on Nate Clement to select Hampton.� Now, by translation, when the Steelers sub their 5th or 6th DB for Casey, essentially they have passed on Clement for either Townsend or Logan.� That�s a step down��
And
- �� A couple years ago, Kirkland was the cover ILB; last season, Holmes took over.� Farrior was brought in as a coverage upgrade.� Why then would you plan to have him off the field in coverage conditions?� Maybe, a LB isn�t a great match-up against a WR but, for the most part, the Steelers have seen just (3) WR with some combination of RB, FB or TE to make the 5-eligible.� Presumably, a coverage LB can handle a TE or RB; so far, our starting safeties have not.�
Then
- ��Alex looks all done; never a strong coverage guy, he has missed far too many tackles.� Sit Alex, start Logan and, when there�s a package, it�s got to be a nickel.�
3rd and Long or The Law of Unintended Consequences, 20 September 2002
There�s other stuff in Mr. Clayton�s piece: in Money matters at receiver, we learn that a true #1 WR goes out at +5M while a good #2 can expect something between 3-4M.� The Steelers save big here: next year, Ward�s cap hit will be at 2.168M while Spike will cost 2.106.� That�s 4.3 or so, barely half of the figure Mr. Clayton offered; that�ll float Bettis� 3.89M (worth it if Big Boy returns to �96, �97 or early �01 form but otherwise Clayton�s Running towards empty does apply).�
In Movement in the middle, we learn that top OC cost about 4M and that teams are converting OG to that position.� In one respect, the Steelers are ahead of that curve, having converted Hartings in 2001.� On the other hand, about the time Spike will be looking at Coles, or Peerless Price, money, Hartings� hit will top 5M.� As first noted in my O-side Overview (24 January 2003), Hartings and Faneca will shortly combine for a 10M hit.� Cap-wise, something�s got to give and, as Kreider got the RFA minimum (since FB figure in about 18% of O-side plays per Mr. Clayton�s FB cash in), so will Hartings feel the axe, circa 2005.�
Give or take that is, while IMO a working knowledge of the cap is required, you�ll get ranging numbers here, not precise figures.� In contrast, No Limit, at the fan-based site burghsportsguys, has a really fine piece on the Steelers� cap situation.� That is titled �Is the window open�?� and features numbers originating from his own accounting (mine are generally lifted from Clayton etal).� While some of the personnel judgments in his article might be arguable, NL�s grasp of cap mechanics, his certain manipulation of figures and precise, legible display of same is unbeatable, either here or in the (moronic) mainstream.���
NL�s piece is highly recommended reading.� If you want more on the cap, visit NFLPA.org and read the CBA.� Additionally, there is a rather scholarly piece at, www.economiced.org/salarycapsArizona, that�ll surely please those versed in legalese, if few others.�
That�s four good reads elsewhere, and several here that you may have missed.� Maybe, that�ll get you towards late July; take good notes on that reading because Diesel surely will be testing at the stiller confab.
� �