2004 O-side Overview

February 01, 2004 by Steel Phantom

O-side Overview, 2002 in review:

2004 O-side Overview, 2003 in review:

The more things change, the more they stay the same.� In 2002, the Steelers had the #8 pass attack and #9 rush attack and so rose to #5 overall.� In 2003, they crashed to #13, #31 and #22 respectively.� Many of the problems we saw last year were presaged in that prior 2003 Overview as:

�On the O-side, re-establishing a power running game is job #1.� The 2002 Steelers were (2) reliable power backs from their glory in 2001; that year, the Bus got off strong and, when he went down, Fu was ready, in tandem with Zereoue, to push the rock.� That wasn�t the case in 2002; Bettis never really got well and Fu reverted to his pre-2001, injury-prone form.� Their deficiency in that area is best exemplified by a continuous failure to grind clock in the late going.� If you don�t think that is important then consider the wildcard round here when Cleveland was absolutely unable to get anything done in the 4^th quarter with William Green and, thereby, blew their trip to Tennessee.�

Too true, job #1 remains re-establishing the run game since, not only does that move the chains but it keeps the defense off the field too.� Over the past couple seasons, we�ve seen more than enough of this PS defense.� This doesn�t mean that the Steelers should dump the pass game.� Far from it, balance counts as these stats from the NE Pats demonstrate:

Run/pass ratio for the New England Pats, past 3 years:

	Run plays	Pass plays	Remarks
2001	473	482	50/50 run pass ratio, Super Bowl champions
2002	395	605	40/60 run pass ratio; only St. Louis was more out of balance, at 343/635.� The Rams didn�t make the PO either.
2003	473	537	47/53 run pass ratio.

For the Steelers:

	Run plays	Pass plays	Remarks
2001	580	454	56% run.
2002	512	551	48/52 run pass ratio; most O-snaps by any Steeler edition.
2003	446	532	46/54 run/pass ratio.� Fewest O-snaps since 1991.� Lowest YPC in 34 seasons, maybe more.

In 2003, the Pats ran it little more than did the Steelers but they ran it better, not much but enough.� Antowain Smith averaged 3.5YPC; the Steelers� leader, Jerome Bettis, 3.3.� Here�s a list of previous low point leaders here:

	YPC	Year	Remarks
Buist Warren	3.0	1945	Part of the powerhouse Steagles.
Boyd Brumbaugh	3.1	1939
John Grigas	3.2	1944	See Warren above.
Dick Hoak	3.2	1965	Mid-60�s, another low point in PS history.
Dick Asbury	3.3	1966	See Hoak.
Jerome Bettis	3.3	2003
Don Shy	3.4	1967	See Hoak.

There you go; the war year Steelers ran it worse and so did the Parker Steelers.� That�s it; that�s the list.� Of course, the pass game went south too; as, again from our prior Overview:

�That said, the Steelers� strength on the O-side resides with their WR and with Tommy Maddox.� That figures to continue, so long as Maddox stays healthy.� Integral to that, is some resolution to the LOT issue looming; Gandy is all but gone and, while that is regrettable, time marches on and, as I�ll argue later, that man doesn�t figure in even in the mid-range.� However, as we saw on the D-side, if you�re not getting better, you�re getting worse and, as the Steelers don�t figure to get better at LOT next year, they�ll have to offset that deficiency elsewhere if they are to improve on the pass game that they initiated in 2002.�

Reimersma didn�t cut it; Fordham didn�t cut it; Doering for Mathis was, at best, a wash; the draft brought nothing.� Last year at this time, the PS had just one OT capable of starting; they had no TE capable of starting.� What�s the difference between then and now?� None in those aspects; however, there are many, many more questions on the interior O-line than at this time last year; also, there�s the fact that Spike Burress no longer looks like a legit franchise type WR.� So, on balance the PS has gone backwards on this side of the ball.� Why?� Well, there�s always that Contract 3 thing to consider, as was done last year:

�In regular season games over the past two years, the Steelers went 8-1 when Mark Breuner was inactive and 7-1-1 when Jerome Bettis was inactive.� Many of those were the same games (in fact, the loss cited above was Cincy 2 in 2001 when Kitna passed the Steelers silly) but, leaving that, it is apparent that the Steelers have been capable of winning, with or without Breuner and the Bus.� Given those players� advancing years and injury histories, that trend figures to become even more pronounced.

Both Breuner and the Bus are replaceable, expensive and injury-prone; it is obvious that their days are numbered here.� However, cutting both players now would free just 0.5M from the 2003 cap; that is their combined 6.04M fully accelerated bonus charge (dead money in 2003) to be balanced against their combined 6.54 2003 hit.� Obviously, 0.5M is not enough to attract any quality FA; hell, it might not cover the cost of filling those roster spots they now occupy, even with bottom-feeding rookies.�

On the other hand, making the cut now would clear the books for 2004.� The Steelers are currently obligated to Breuner and the Bus at a combined 7.75M in that season.� Cut now, their charge in 2004 would be zero; cut after June of this year, 3.2M would remain on the 2004 books.� By releasing the B-brothers pre-June 2003, the Steelers would gain an additional 4.55M relief on their 2004 cap.�

�

Well, the numbers have changed; now, cutting Breuner and the Bus pre-June 1 would clear 2.96M from the 2004 cap and an astonishing 8.62M from the 2005 cap.� However, the discussion remains the same; that is, should they or shouldn�t they?� Well, yeah, they should and plenty more too.�

Will they?� No, probably not Bettis anyway so long as Coach Cowher�s future here is at stake.� It�s fairly easy to forecast that WLC will dance with them that brung �im �an� �at.�� Whatever.� It�s not interesting to predict what the Steelers will do so the following will focus on what they should do, IMO.� Generally, this article will follow that format established on the D-side Overview.� That is: a unit-by- unit analysis featuring a tabular array and a discussion section, then a ordered cap list, an outline of needs and sources to meet those.� Turning to the units:

Interior O-linemen:

The players are listed by term of service.� The salary and cap figures posted here were published in the PG on 24 October 2002.� Naturally, the remarks are my own.

Player	Signed thru	2004 cap cost ($M)	Cap clearance if cut pre-June 1/after	Remarks
A. Faneca	2007	5.10	Cornerstone	Three-time Pro Bowler and still young.� Arguably the best LOG in the NFL and a serviceable LOT too.� Makes the players on each side better too; great player, great teammate.� Figures as the best OG in PS history.
J. Hartings	2006	4.98	1.29M/3.70M	High character, highly professional guy but since damaging his knee in 2002 against Indy really has not been the same player.
C. Okobi	RFA	None now	Not applicable	In 2002, was passable in several starts at OC but got rolled repetitively in Tennessee; has shown no signs that he can play OG which reduces his utility as a backup.� Despite Hartings� various ailments, got little time last year.� The Steelers have to make a decision on this player but have provided themselves little basis to do so.
K. Vincent	RFA	None now	Not applicable	Was functional but certainly did not dominant in 10-11 starts in 2003.� Stout in pass protection and whatever problems he has with twists and so on might be eliminated with more PT.� However, plays high and plays stiff so, for a man his size gets surprisingly little push in the run game.� Almost worthless blocking on the move although, again, this could be a function of experience.�� At this point, is the best of the O-line class of 2001 but so far that�s not saying much.
K. Simmons	2007	1.14	None, 0.98M charge to the cap	Had some problems in his rookie season especially anchoring against power DT and blocking on the 2^nd level.� Due to shoulder, elbow and sugar problems, regressed dramatically in 2003.� At this point, well, we just don�t know.� Simmons is an intelligent and competitive player but he�s under-sized (frame-wise) and under-strong too.� In the best case, he�s an OC IMO since he can play lighter there (which would help that sugar thing); certainly, his character strengths do fit that position.
Jim Jones	2004?	Min.	Negligible	6-3, 310#.� Was a UDFA in 2001 (Ravens) and stuck for a time.� Disappeared thereafter; probably, no more than camp fodder.

Discussion:

From last year�s Overview:

� Like no team in football, Pittsburgh has built their O-line from the inside out.� It is a rare thing when a center or guard is drafted in the 1^st round; for example, last year, Kendall Simmons was the only player at either position taken in the opening frame.� The year before, two, Leonard Davis and Steve Hutchinson, went early; the same was true in 2000, with Chris McIntosh and Stockar McDougale.� Few teams field more than one 1^st round pick in the inner three; in contrast, the Steelers not only picked OG first in both �98 and �02 but brought in Jeff Hartings, a �96 1^st round selection, to play the center position.

It could be said that the Steelers are ahead of the curve in this regard.� After all, DT have been heavily represented in the 1^st round recently; those men line-up closest to the QB and, no doubt, an interior rush is the best means to disarm the short drop, quick pass attack mode which now dominates the league.�� Possibly, the Steelers anticipated this and willingly paid a premium to neutralize the strength of their opponents; certainly, their interior trio played effectively in 2002 against, say, the Jags 1^st round DT tandem and, certainly, they played effectively against Warren Sapp and Co.�

More likely though, this was the residue of prior success rather than any overarching conceptual frame.� Generally, the premium prospects at OG, along with TE, MLB and safety, are available at the bottom of the first round and, if not always, often, that is where the Steelers have been selecting.� That describes the case in both �98 and �02 anyway; that so, Pittsburgh�s strength in the interior probably derives less from any prescience or precognition than from a solid *BPA (best player available) draft philosophy.� Regardless, this unit is as strong as any on the team and, arguably, as good as any similar trio league-wide.�

*� That BPA designation is probably erroneous.� While Simmons was regarded as co-BPA at his position, that is BAP (best at position), there were several players remaining on the board who were rated, overall, in the same area.� To name two, Clinton Portis and Kalimba Edwards.� Evidently, the PS then felt no need at RB or DE/OLB and so drafted the best player available at a position of need.� Most teams do but regardless, a pure BPA approach would exclude all positional consideration.� Suicide?� Well, maybe, but at this point most would prefer Portis to Simmons.� However, Simmons over Portis is a defensible call but when a player outclasses all others on the board, say, Jevon Kearse, 1.13 �99, that�s a different story.� Leaving that historic treatise, the 2004 PS has so many holes that BPA, as outlined above, is certainly their best option.� Now, back to the primary text:

That was then but you know, not for long.� The O-side collapse of 2003 began in-board with Hartings reporting to camp unable to participate effectively and Simmons not able to participate at all.� Now, it�s past obvious that Hartings won�t be here through the term of his deal.� In the table above, you�ll note that the PS have over 10M in 2004 cap space tied up in Faneca and Hartings; that�s an absurdly high figure but it�s going to rise between here and �06, the end of Hartings� deal.� Considering that Faneca is a 3-time PB player in his 20�s and Hartings is a no-time PB player in his 30�s, the outcome is apparent

Of course, timing is everything and now is not the time to let Hartings go.� Job #1 is to re-establish the run game here; for sure, Hartings� play has declined from 2001 but the fact remains that he was the Steelers� 2^nd best O-lineman for most of last season.� It�s not at all clear that Simmons is going to come back to strength; it�s not at all clear that Okobi can play at all; it�s fairly clear that Vincent is outside the standard mode of O-linemen here.�� Given that, given an immobile QB, given a likely premium high round RB, it seems prudent that Hartings remain in place for at least one season more.�

That�s not all bad; Hartings is a good team guy and a great professional.� While he had problems anchoring against players on his nose (Simms in KC, the Bolts� Williams here), he remains capable of blocking effectively on the move and, past Faneca, he�s the only interior player that consistently can accomplish that.� At his best, Hartings is a top 5 OC in the league; he hasn�t been at his best since the Indy game of 2002 but regardless, he remains the Steelers� BAP.

The others are pretenders, IMO; Okobi looks to be strictly backup material at OC and, since he can�t play OG, doesn�t figure in the long term.� As for Kendall Simmons, well, the Steelers have a lot invested in that player but have him out of position.� Simmons is too short and too small to function as a road grader at RG; the bulk required to play there is inimical to his long-term prospects on the planet.� Simmons is going to have to drop some tonnage and move inside; whether he can function there is open to question but the necessity for the move is not.� The other aspect is this: Okobi is a dwarfish 6-1, Simmons 6-2; it�s tough to imagine such a Lilliputian tandem inside in the long-term.� It is going to be Okobi or Simmons, not both; odds are, Simmons although so long as both are one-position players, that�s a toss-up utility-wise.��

Keydrick Vincent is a one-position player too; well, he can play OG on either side but he certainly does not have the feet to play OT, even on the right side.� Vincent is huge; he�s got the heft and frame to project as a road grader but so far, really hasn�t factored as such.� Part of that seems to be technique; after 3 years here, Vincent still tends to bend at the waist rather than sink his hips; in other coaching aspects, after 3 years here, Vincent still struggles to locate and lock-on.� Still, you�ve got to wonder whether this player can really factor in the move-block, brutal ballet that the PS traditionally has choreographed along the O-line.� Yes, Vincent has size but no, he doesn�t move great.

At this point, I�d have Vincent penciled in at RG with Hartings, Simmons and Okobi sorting it out at OC.� Two of those can play OG too so that�s some depth but certainly the PS could use more, especially given their contractual issues past this season.� There�s room for a quality starter via FA but money is at issue; there�s room for a quality G/OT prospect via the draft too.��

I would not pencil in Faneca at OT; sure, he played fine outside last year but best case, he�s the rock of the interior.� On an emergency basis, Faneca is a fine option at OT but IMO a truly dominating O-line here would have Alan inside, not out.� Turning to that unit:

��

Offensive Tackle:

The players are listed by term of service.� The salary and cap figures posted here were published in the PG on 24 October 2002.� Naturally, the remarks are my own.

Player	Signed thru	2004 cap cost ($M)	Cap clearance if cut pre-June 1/after	Remarks
Marvel Smith	2007	3.25	None, charge of 1.75M against the cap.	Played effectively at LT before going down with what was essentially a season ending injury.� This player�s health is paramount to the Steelers� chances in 2004, indeed to their coming FA and draft strategy.�
Oliver Ross	2004	2.12	1.75M/same	Has some versatility: can play both tackle positions and guard though he struggles at every spot.� Has been durable, a plus in this battered group and therefore figures for one more season here.��
M. Nkwenti	RFA	None now	Not applicable	Finally got off the bench against Denver but, evidently, that effort was too great as Nkwenti was placed on IR the following week.� Best athlete on the O-line but there is no evidence that he can play football.
Josh Burr	2004	Min.	Negligible	Huge but worthless: in pre-season last summer, made Panther backup DE Al Wallace look like Reggie White.� Got cut thereafter, didn�t get picked up elsewhere.� Is far overage as a developmental prospect and if he hasn�t made progress in two years, I�d guess that he won�t in the third.
(Todd Fordham)	2005	0.69M	0.37M/0.53M	Cheap but no bargain.� Ross defaulted in the early going last season and Fordham got the ROT job but events demonstrated that he couldn�t handle it.� Absolute must cut; is not a quality 3^rd OT and the 4^th OT slot should be dedicated to some younger, developing player.
Barrett Brooks	UFA	None	Negligible	Former Eagle 2^nd rounder who disappointed there.� Knocked around but didn�t stick elsewhere, was signed here mid-season but never activated.� Like Fordham, doesn�t factor.
Morgan Pears	2004	Min.	Negligible	6-6, 323# UDFA (Miami) in �03.� Certainly has the size but considering that the Fins cut him despite an absence of OT there, probably has little upside.� Still, is definitely worth a look.

Discussion:

This, from last year�s Overview:

�Wayne Gandy has been a quality LOT and next year, more than ever, that spot figures to be of primary importance to the Steelers.� Of course, that is because T-Max will be the starting QB next year and, while that man has absolutely earned the position, there has to be some concern with regard to his mobility or pocket presence, not to say his ability to absorb repeated blows whether from the blindside or any other.� Gandy has demonstrated his ability to protect while his dual heir apparent, Ross or Nkwenti, have not.� That so, we might expect the Steelers to exert themselves in re-signing this man but, probably, they will not do so.

This situation recalls that following the �97 season when Jon Jackson was up for renewal.� Jackson was a 10-year vet, more or less the same as Gandy and, like that man is now, Jackson was then entering the dreaded Contract 3.� Any effort the Steelers may have made then to sign their man was trumped by the Bolts who lavished a high-digit, long�term deal on JJ.� As we all know, the Steelers struggled in the following season; their plan was to move Justin Strylzcek to LOT and let Jamain Stephens and Paul Wiggins battle for the start at ROT but that failed miserably.� Wiggins fell out of the competition due to a substance abuse problem and, after Stephens struggled early, Strylzcek moved back to ROT with Will Wolford sliding out from LOG to LOT (a move that ultimately cost the Steelers their �00 pick in the 3^rd round).� Strylzcek lasted a game or two on the right-side before blowing out a knee; this left the Steelers with no recourse but Wolford, playing with one good arm, to remain at LOT with the infamously underachieving Stephens on the right.� Of course, Chris Conrad figured in this somewhere but the less of said of that man the better.

In �98, Jackson was clearly the best LOT of that group; it is highly likely that, in 2003, Gandy will be the best LOT of those tabulated above.� That said, the direction is usually downward in Contract 3 and, if the Jackson analogy holds for Gandy, that downward slope will be steep, swift and sure.� Jackson started for just two seasons in San Diego; while he played effectively in �98, he struggled in �99 and was cut the following winter.� After that, he picked up a check as a Bengal backup (reunited with the lamentable LaLame).� In sum, while Jackson gave the Bolts his best, this amounted to one solid season and a heap of dead money.� Sure, the Steelers would have been better with Jackson in �98 but, really, not in any season following.�

Of course, there are individual differences; the history cited above does not preclude Wayne Gandy from playing effectively for another three or four years.� The odds are against that though; while the Steeler FO has more certain knowledge, we�ve got to conclude that, off the chalk, Wayne is about done.� That so, the issue revolves around where you believe the Steelers are at present in their quest for that thumb ring.� If you think they�ve got a year before the window slams shut again then you�d sign Gandy, cap be damned.� If you think they�ve got brighter long-term prospects, or if you think the window went down last season and they�re in re-load mode now, then you�ve got to set the big man free��

And this, though that train has long since left the station:

�Of the veterans liable to be cut, Wayne Gandy figures to be more serviceable in 2003 than either Breuner or the Bus.� That true, then it would be more reasonable to resign him than to ride on with the B-brothers for yet another season.�

Well, those numbers really didn�t add up; that is, releasing Breuner and Bettis last year wouldn�t have secured Gandy, not without some considerable manipulation of all caps in years following.� More to the point, the Steelers were, or should have been, in re-load mode at this time last year.� After all, they had no answer at RB, or at DB, two positions deficient from 2002 to date.� Nor, as it turned out, at OT where the 2003 Steelers closed out as they had in 1998, with their LOG forced out-board to LOT and a slow, clumsy guy who never had shown he was ready for primetime flailing ineffectually on the right side.��

The death knell for the Steeler 2003 OT corps sounded early, with the Marvel Smith deal.� That�s not because the Steelers paid Smith good, not great, OT money; in that respect, I think they did the right thing (see Marvelous, summer 2003 where the basic argument was this):

Smith and Gandy both got 5-year deals.� Over the term, which player will be the better LT?

Just on an age basis, you�ve got to believe the answer is Smith.� Anyway, the problem with moving Smith to LOT is that it became clear that Nkwenti wasn�t ready.� In the 2003 Overview, this:

�Oliver Ross is insurance against Nkwenti�s failure to develop but it is Nkwenti, not Ross, whom the Steelers must hope moves in at LOT.� In that light, any effort to re-sign Gandy would simply heap insurance on insurance; if the Steelers believe Ross can function as a starter, then whether Nkwenti develops or not, Gandy would become an aging, expensive backup.� The Steelers drafted Nkwenti to start; they extended Ross as a bridge to that day; in my opinion, they should stay the course.��

At that point, Nkwenti had worked solely at LOT; subsequently, he got a minute or two on the right in pre-season but was, at no time, a real contender there.� So, with Smith at LOT, the ROT had to be Ross, a career scrub or Fordham, who had a number of starts but down in Jacksonville, was regarded as a highly upgradeable player.� Having signaled that Nkwenti wasn�t the guy, the PS entered �03 consigned to feature scrub A or scrub B at ROT.� Both got their chances; neither performed.

This was reflected in the RZ attack.� In 2002, the PS had success running 4-wide in the RZ.� Obviously this places a burden on that 5-man front, especially the OT, but in 2002, the Steelers had two <blindside protect worthy> players on the edge, as this, from the 2003 Overview purports:

�Many believe that Marvel Smith will move over to LOT.� That is the position he played in college and when he came out in �00, he was considered a prospect on that side, not the so-called power side.� Of course, things have changed since �00 as, in the pass-first, spread offense endemic today every tackle has to play on an island; in that respect, the hoary difference between left and right is much diminished.� Smith may move over to take T-Max�s blind side; certainly, he has better footwork than does Oliver Ross but even if Smith moves, the need for two quality pass protectors remains.� That so, whether or not Smith flips is largely irrelevant.��

In 2003, after Smith went down, the PS fielded zero <blindside protect worthy> players; so did the 3-TE pack replace the 4-wide and so did the PS RZ attack flop.� At this point, the Steelers are exactly where they were at this time last year, short one starting quality OT.� Ross has proven he can�t do it as, aside from their RZ woes, the PS couldn�t run right all season.� Although Fordham wasn�t on the team at this time last year, he certainly demonstrated he has no place on a contending squad.� Nkwenti is now, as he was then, absolutely unproven.�

One thing has changed; Nkwenti can�t be the #4 OT any longer.� Best, he�s starter-worthy (since Ross is not) but at minimum he�s got to move up to #3.� If the PS brain trust figures he can accomplish that, fine, keep him (though what basis they�d have for that projection has to be questionable).� If not, just on a durability basis, Oliver Ross has to get another term though hopefully as a #3.� Best case, it�s Ross or Nkwenti, not both; IMO, this suggests a starter-caliber FA and a quality developmental draft pick.

The 1998/2003 parallel is clear enough but you may recall that the 1999 O-line was no great shakes either.� Gandy came in to play LOT but the Steeler home grown OT really didn�t get it done on the right side, nor did another FA, Skates Brown.� ROT was a void� until, in the last game or two, Shar Pourdanesh staffed that spot.� Now, the case today isn�t exactly the same: neither Wolford nor Strylzcek then returned from the �98 team; that�s (0) returning (competent) starters at OT then but with Smith, we can project (1) OT for the 2004 team.� Still, it was a tough go here at OT until midway through 2000, what we don�t want to see is a repeat parallel as 1999/2004.��

Fun facts: a list of those players along the O-lines of three of the best-balanced offenses in the league: KC, Green Bay and Minnesota.

Kansas City:

LT Willie Roaf:� Originally a top 10 pick (NO, 1993); came over in a 2002 trade, costing KC a 3^rd round pick.
LG Brian Waters:� Originally a UDFA (Dallas, 1999); street FA.
OC Casey Weigman: Originally a UFDA (Indy, 1994); mid-tier FA.
RG Will Shields: KC 3^rd round pick in 1993.
RT John Tait:� KC 1^st round pick in 1999.

That�s two homegrown and three imports, of one sort or another.� The Vikings look about the same:

LT Mount McKinnie:� 1^st round #7 overall, by Minnesota in 2002.
LG: Craig Liwienski: Originally a 7^th round pick (Detroit, 1998); FA.
OC Matt Birk: Minnesota 6^th round pick, 1998.
RG Dan Dixon:� Originally a 9^th round pick (NE, 1992); street FA.
RT Mike Rosenthal: Originally a 5^th round pick (NYG, 1999); mid-tier FA pickup last winter.

Same profile, two homegrown and three imports; KC fields two players who were originally UFDA; Minnesota fields four who were originally 2^nd day picks.� Finally, Green Bay, whose O-line is entirely homegrown but like those others, has several players contributing past their (draft) pedigree.

LT Chad Clifton:� GB, 2^nd round 2000.
LG Mike Wahle: GB, 2^nd round supplemental, 1998.
OC Mike Flanagan: GB, 3^rd round, 1996.
RG Marco Rivera: GB, 6^th round, 1996.
RT Mark Tauscher: GB, 7^th round, 2000.��

What�s the point?� Well, of 15 players listed above, 8 either were 2^nd day picks, or weren�t drafted at all.� Excluding QB, it�s doubtful whether any other position would show that kind of profile.� In contrast, the PS have spent many a prime pick on this unit, and may well do so again this spring.� In isolation, there�s nothing wrong with that (so long as you get a player) but in League Parity, it�s apparent that any team has such and so many chances to improve any given position.� The Steelers� deficiency in space players (FS, CB, DE per 2004 D-side Overview or, say, RB and QB on this side of the ball), traces directly to their upfront obsession, and to a very dubious set of picks commencing in the waning Days of Donahoe and continuing now in the Time of Cowbert.� IMO, nothing would benefit their overall roster more than if the FO were able to locate and lock up some high try, aggressive, smart brawlers capable of contributing ASAP.�� Whether those players are 2^nd day draft picks or mid-tier FA is inconsequential; either route is far better, on that overall roster basis, than lavishing yet another prime pick on this unit.

What else?� Well, of those 15 vets, only 6 were FA (or otherwise imported) but excluding Green Bay, that�s 6 of 10.� Of those 6, only Roaf could be described as a premium type but for whatever reason, NO couldn�t extract premium compensation for this player.� This suggests, but certainly does not assure, that some guaranteed nothing, low echelon FA could in fact be a contributing player.

Cohesion counts and there�s a longevity factor associated with that; for example, the GB unit has been together for 4-8 years.� That�s two players from 1996, here the year of Jamain Stephens (and now Jeff Hartings too); one from 1998, here the year of Chris Conrad and two from 2000, here the year of the sole survivor, Marvel Smith.� There�s your draft, the good, the bad and the ugly.� A good pro gets it quick; KC certainly didn�t miss a beat with Roaf; Minnesota swapped out their prior OT tandem (Todd Steussie and the late Korey Stringer) with an elite pick, McKinnie, and the journeyman FA, Rosenthal.�

Conclusion, O-line in the aggregate:

IMO, the PS should focus their FA efforts on this unit, meaning the O-line at large, not just OT.� There�s no doubt that they need the help, especially at OT, and, given the array of questions associated with their incumbent group, a proven player, or two, seems a more comfortable fit than a draft prospect, however highly regarded.

Of course, health was a huge factor in the O-line�s decline last year.� Smith went out, Nkwenti went out, Hartings was hobbled and Simmons essentially worthless.� That wasn�t the only factor; depth figured too as Fordham flopped, Ross flailed, Vincent didn�t exactly take command and Okobi rarely exited the pine but leaving that, maybe the Steelers 2003 O-line woes were previously paralleled in Green Bay where what resurrected itself as an exceptionally solid 2003 unit, could get nothing done in the 2002 stretch.� Remember, Sapp clocked Clifton, Tauscher got trashed too and the Pack then limped in.��

In 2004, you�ve got to figure that Smith will rebound; after that, well who knows?� Nkwenti got about eleven minutes of PT and then 11 weeks on IR.� You know the story with Hartings and with Simmons.� In the mid-term, just after next season, the PS face decisions on 3/5 interior players: Hartings, Okobi and Vincent.� Almost certainly, Hartings will be let go, if only to pay for the other two.� If that pair figures long-range, fine; the PS have only moderate replacement need here.� If not, then on a BPA basis, interior O-line does figure in the draft upcoming; OT too, although FA could reduce that from a 1^st to 2^nd day imperative.

Tight End:

The players are listed by term of service.� The salary and cap figures posted here were published in the PG on 24 October 2002.� Naturally, the remarks are my own.

Player	Signed thru	2004 cap cost ($M)	Cap clearance if cut pre-June 1/after	Remarks
(M. Bruener)	2006	3.00	1.20M/2.40M	Must cut prior to FA.
J. Tuman	2005	1.12	Best of the worst unit in football	Steelers� best all around TE but that�s not saying much.� More a seal-off than a drive blocker; while he was a fixture in the RZ packages, he got nothing done.
M. Cushing	UFA	None now	Not applicable	Keeps coming back but rarely gets action and, when he does, contributes little if anything.� Still, could be the Steelers� 2^nd TE next season.
(J. Reimersma)	2005	1.43	0.86M/1.15M	Another must cut, IMO.� JR was brought in as a pass catcher but contributed just 1 RZ TD, none after Game 1.� Stunningly awful blocker: on sweeps to his side, was nearly always thrown back so acting effectively as a 12^th defender.�� Spent enough time in the tub to recall the otherwise forgettable John Allred.�

Discussion:

The Steelers got nearly nothing from this position last year.� They carried 4 TE and carried is the operative term, as that quartet accomplished exactly (2) RZ TD receptions (none from elsewhere on the field).� Bad?� Sure, especially considering the PS typically had 3 TE on in their RZ packs, but considering that the TE long has functioned here as a glorified OT, that non-productivity couldn�t have been a shock. The thing is, last year, the PS didn�t get much blocking either: Bruener is far from his peak; Tuman is just a guy; Cushing is a non-factor and Reimersma proved to be stunningly awful in that role.� It�s past time to clean house at this position; IMO, Breuner is a cut soonest towards clearing 2005 money; Reimersma is a cut soonest because, well, he accomplished nothing last season and figures to decline.

If it�s blocking they want, the PS would be well advised to carry an extra O-lineman or two; considering their contractual issues inside, they�d be well advised to do that anyway.� However, that�s not enough; they need a RZ presence in the pass game plus, if it�s Cover 2 from here, they need a seam threat elsewhere on the field.� FA is not an option for this team at this position since any competent vet is going to prefer a destination where he has chance to get the ball.� That leaves the draft where, historically, some highly capable TE began their careers as 2^nd round picks.� While at present the Steelers do have more pressing issues, their rooted deficiencies here make as good an argument as any for trading down for additional draft options.

Even a short drop would yield a mid-round pick or two and, maybe, a TE bruiser like 320# Jason Peters.�� Peters wouldn�t figure as a seam threat but certainly could get something done in the RZ.� Or, trading out of their current roster; for example, the recently rumored deal with Atlanta where the PS send Spike Burress and 1.11 for TJ Duckett, 1.07 (or 08) and 2.39 would, among other things, put them in position (at 2.39) to get the #2 TE in the draft, Ben Troupe.�

Once upon a time, the Steelers featured a <run first, pass as a last resort> type offense; then, they lined up Mark Bruener, a fine blocker but a non-factor in the pass game.� Last year, they were a chuck and duck team, unable to run it at all; then, they lined up Jay Reimersma, presumably a receiver but quite obviously no kind of blocker.� The PS attack has been one-dimensional (one dimension or the other) for years; this has been reflected in their TE personnel.� It�s past time to diversify; one aspect to that is acquiring a full-faceted TE.� That�s a BPA pick, far outside those immediate needs (RT, CB, RB, and so on) generally acknowledged; however, on a long term, team building basis, TE must be a high priority.��

Running back/Fullback:

The players are listed by term of service.� The salary and cap figures posted here were published in the PG on 24 October 2002.� Naturally, the remarks are my own.

Player	Signed thru	2004 cap cost ($M)	Cap clearance if cut pre-June 1/after	Remarks
(Jerome Bettis)	2006	4.76	1.76M/3.62M	Steelers� best RB in 2003 but that�s not saying much.� Sentimental choice to return but in fact is a must cut.� Bettis has 3119 career carries; that�s #3 all-time behind Emmitt Smith, 4142 and Walter Payton, 3838.� Those two are freaks; far back, #4 Barry Sanders had 3062 and # 5 Marcus Allen 3022.� No other RB has had more than 3K.
(Amos Zereoue)	2005	2.74	1.66M/2.20M	Coming into 2003, it was questionable whether this player could be a feature RB.� Well, that�s over as Zereoue failed completely in that role last season.� This player is vastly overpaid as a 3^rd down back; due to that bloated salary, he can�t be traded.� Must cut prior to FA.
Dan Kreider	UFA	None	Not applicable	Hard-nosed player who is a Steeler type.� No great receiver but for two years has gotten about as much done in the pass game as all Steeler TE.� Should be extended, IMO for something south of, say, Jerame Tuman money.
Verron Haynes	2005, includes RFA season	0.41	0.38M/same	Has finished both of his seasons as a Steeler on IR; off that, you�ve got to conclude that he isn�t a reliable part of the future.
JT Wall	EFA	+/- 0.25	Negligible	Kreider clone but less so.� Essentially, a non-factor.
Dante Brown	EFA	+/- 0.25	Negligible	Good size/speed prospect; broke a couple big runs in pre-season, did show willingness to pass protect too.� Looked like a prospect but got no action in the regular campaign and therefore can�t be considered a future piece.
Dee Brown	EFA	+/- 0.25	Negligible	Former 6^th round pick in Carolina; was pressed into service there in 2002 but wasn�t especially impressive.� At best, a career backup; it figures to be a short career.

Discussion:

In 2001, the Steeler running game was a juggernaut; a season later, that phase dropped to a very soft 9^th overall, last year, a horrific 31^st.� It�s not for lack of trying; in 2002, the Steelers were 3^rd in rushing attempts, last year, they were 17^th, which isn�t good but considering they were T-31 in YPC, what can you expect?� Speaking of which, their YPC mark has dropped from 4.8 (2001) to 4.1 (2002) and to 3.3 (2003).�

That�s not going to cut it; only one other team, Tennessee, ran it at 3.3 and of course the cause there is the same as here: Eddie George is done and so is Jerome Bettis.� Bettis hasn�t been the same back since he got hurt in 2001; before that, the game plan was to roll the Bus early and often, punishing defenders until, late, LB and DB would turn down tackles.� Well, that�s not happening anymore; for two seasons, defenders have routinely dropped Bettis on a solo basis.� That�s not good; factor that he fumbled five times last year, that he�s #3 all-time in carries and, c�mon, it�s over.� Let it go.�

Now, it could be said that the Steelers� problem running the ball had more to do with their O-line than the RB.� For sure, the O-line was awful in the aggregate.� Tennessee, which ran it badly, could protect their QB; teams like Buffalo and Washington, who could not protect their QB, could run it, a little anyway.� The PS did neither so on balance, the PS O-line was as bad as any in football; maybe, that fact could give the RB a pass.

Not in Bettis� case, where those mounting career carries should be the deciding factor.� As for Zereoue, well, on the plus side, he can catch the ball; on the downside, he�s bad between the tackles.� That�s not a size thing; it�s that he hits the hole and stops, not notably the mark of a feature back.� Zereoue takes too many losses; those subvert any rational play-calling sequence; that fact hasn�t changed for two seasons; we can project that it will not.�� 2001 looks like the high point of his career here; at that time, he was an effective COP RB in tandem with Bettis, then Fu.� That�s what he is and that�s what he�s going to be; unfortunately, his cap hit is 2.74M next year, absurd for that role.� While IMO, he�s a better cut/re-do option than is Bettis more than likely, if Zereoue were cut, some team would pick him up.� Still, considering the PS are in re-build mode now (or should be), they�ve got to look past their 2004 season towards the 2005 cap; that so, Zereoue has to be a cut.��

On any kind of utilization basis, you know, unit productivity per cap dollar expended; cutting both RB would be a no-brainer.� The trouble is, the PS has no known quantity behind their so-called top two.� Verron Haynes flashed in pre-season but this player evidently is the new Fu; two years with the Steelers, both closed out on the IR.� While Greg Lloyd started his career here that way too, there�s little to suggest that Haynes is the Greg Lloyd of RB.� More likely, Haynes is never going to factor and, as for Dante Brown, well, Priest Holmes was an UDFA, as was Troy Hambrick.� However, most don�t make it and the odds are long on Dante.� In sum, we can say the PS has absolutely nothing at RB next year; that being so, they�d be well advised to draft a couple, and troll for UDFA as well.�

Finally, FB:� Dan Kreider is as good a lead blocker at FB as exists; further, he has developed as a reasonable check-down option.� Kreider is not a cornerstone player because FB is not a cornerstone position; however, Kreider is a player you can win with and so should be retained.� Figure a quality RB is worth, say, 3.5-4.5M; figure Kreider is going to be on the field for 18-23% of all O-side snaps, do the math.� If it is going to come down to retaining Bettis, Zereoue or Kreider (just for some kind of experience), I�d take Kreider, at that kind of money.

Fun facts:

The following list displays, in order, those RB in the top 20 rushing, by round drafted.� �E� is elite, a top 5 pick; the other entries are apparent:

Top 10: E, 3^rd, E, 1^st, 2^nd, 1^st, 4^th, 1^st, UFDA, and E.
2^nd 10: 2^nd, 3^rd, E, 2^nd, 1^st, 4^th, 2^nd, 3^rd, UFDA, 4^th.

In all:

4, elite.
4, rest of the first.
4, 2^nd.
3, 3^rd.
3, 4^th.
2, UFDA.

Well, 3 of the top 10 were elite picks, and 2 of the top 3 but it�s apparent that highly functional RB can be found throughout the draft.� As for experience and achievement, here is the same set, by years of service completed through 2003:

Top 10:� 4, 6, 3, 3, 2, 6, 8, 4, 7, 5.
2^nd 10:� 3, 9, 5, 7, 8, R, 3, 3, 4, 3.

13 of 20 have 5 or fewer years; there are more 6-8 year guys than you might expect but it�s worth noting that those vets didn�t come out of nowhere; most of those players have been top 20 backs throughout their careers.� There�s no doubt that a young RB can contribute immediately; the PS certainly should expect to get a starter in the draft, maybe a capable role player too.

�

Wide Receivers:

The players are listed by term of service.� The salary and cap figures posted here were published in the PG on 24 October 2002.� Naturally, the remarks are my own.

Player	Signed thru	2004 cap cost ($M)	Cap clearance if cut pre-June 1/after	Remarks
Hines Ward	2005	2.17	Cornerstone	Three-time Pro Bowler, leads by example on the field and off.� Has a real shot at #1 in receptions among all PS WR, even prior to his Contract 3.
Spike Burress	2004	2.25	0.92M	Burress has been highly effective for a season and a half (2002, 2^nd half 2001), very average for the same term (2003, 1^st half 2001); he was, as we all recall, bad in his rookie year.� IMO, Burress is a front-runner and, while talented, is not really a player you can win with.� It�s doubtful he�ll be extended after 2004 and it�s unlikely he�ll be franchised at that time.� At this point, he�s a trade commodity, IMO.
ARE	2005	0.61	Not applicable.	Developed as a PR but not as a KR; regressed as a WR.� Remains an impact player but strictly on ST; in the pass game, he�s a niche player only.
Lee Mays	2005, including RFA season	0.40	0.38M/same	Size/speed prospect that played fairly well on coverage teams but did not factor in the pass game.� At this point, is the Steelers� top candidate for 1^st backup at WR (distinct from slot).� Considering his lack of game experience, that�s not good.
Chris Doering	UFA	None now	Not applicable	A good pro but (lack of) speed limits his ability to factor.� Still, probably worth bringing back at the x-year vet min.
Freddie Milons	2004	0.38	0.38M/same	An ARE clone but less so.� In pre-season, Milons was the Eagles 3^rd PR and wasn�t in their top 3 KR.� Could develop here as a 2^nd slot, 2^nd PR but that�s about it.� Is not a likely candidate as a backup wide receiver.
B. Robinson	2004	+/-0.25	Negligible	In pre-season, showed willingness to go over the middle.� Still, was a camp cut then and, presumably, will be strictly a practice player.

Discussion:

Despite a down season all around, the Steelers are getting a great return for their cap buck from this unit.� Just consider, Faneca makes more than the top 3 Ward, Spike and ARE combined; Hartings makes more than the top two.� Still, performance at WR depends on performance elsewhere: an O-line to hold pocket, a QB to throw accurately, a run game to move the SS.� Like that; on balance, it�s highly likely that the 2003 decline here was predicated on other, out-unit factors.

That said, a couple things jump out.� First, the Steelers have very dubious depth; their top X, Y and Z receivers are outstanding (within those roles but hardly interchangeable) but they get little to nothing from the second group, say, Doering, Mays and Milons.� Considering the contract termination dates noted above, developmental depth is a high priority here.

Then there�s Spike; Burress is the last year of his deal and, off his performance last season, this is highly likely to be his last year in B&G.� In 2002, it was pretty much <stop Spike, stop the Steelers> but that was not true last season.� Consider the following table:

Spike�s stats:

	2002	2003	Remarks
Total	78 receptions, 1325 yards 7 TD	60 receptions 860 yards 4 TD
In Wins	62 1121 6 *includes Atlanta tie	20 282 3	Wins and tie, average per game: 2002: 5.6R, 102. 2003: 3.33, 47.
In losses	16 204 1	40 578 1	Losses, average per game: 2002: 3.2R, 41 yards.� 2003: 4R, 58 YPG.

�

Weird it may be but Spike�s contribution in 2003 wins looked like his stats in 2002 losses; his numbers in those many 2003 losses were (strangely) better.� Spike was a difference-maker in those 2002 wins but really not last season, in any regard.� Not that this was entirely his fault but we�re sure not talking about a franchise carrying player here.�

Beyond doubt, Burress has been the Steelers� primary downfield threat and, more than likely, the 2004 Steeler pass game would be worse without him than with.� That�s not the point though; unless the PS franchises him for 2005, he�s gone.� I don�t think they will, as the Coles and Price deals bumped up the WR tag enormously; so, better they get something than nothing, and now is the time.� Given their deficiencies throughout the roster; given their deficiencies in WR depth, they�re faced with this: put all their eggs in Spike�s basket or move on.�

I�d move on: Spike was a freakishly big WR when he came into the league but at this point, he�s approaching <just a guy> status.� The Williams boys, Mike Clayton, Mike Jenkins, Derek Hamilton, Ernest Wilford all are WR 6-4 and up.� Burress has gotten by on ability, or maybe just size, but, shortly, what he�s got is not going be so such unusual.� IMO, the PS should get ahead of that prospect now, by dealing Burress now.

Alternatively, they can hold on; Spike can have that big contract season; the Steelers could squeak into the PO and so on.� But you know, the situation with Burress parallels that with those Contract 3 guys that the FO extended to keep that window open.� The future was then, or so it was thought; now, if Burress is your guy long term fine (though I disagree) but if not, not.� Get a real TE, get a couple legit contributing WR such as say, 6-5 RFA Drew Bennett and, who knows but the passing game would be better for that diversification.

Finally, the issue is reliability; Burress hasn�t got it but Hines Ward does.� Just now, the PS has Ward and Spike capped at 4.42M (combined); shortly, that won�t cover either one.� Mid-range, the FO will be obliged to choose between Ward and Burress; it could be neither but it won�t be both.

Quarterback:

The players are listed by term of service.� The salary and cap figures posted here were published in the PG on 24 October 2002.� Naturally, the remarks are my own.

Player	Signed thru	2004 cap cost ($M)	Cap clearance if cut pre-June 1/after	Remarks
Tommy Maddox	2006	1.30, including LTBE incentives.	1M/1.2M	Highly erratic QB: leads the Steelers all-time in 300-yard pass games but also had some of the worst performances in living memory (Houston, 2002; Cleveland 1&2, 2003, to name a few).� Would be a good complement to an effective running game but certainly cannot carry a team alone.�
Charlie Batch	2004	1.23	1M/0.8M	Former starter but has accumulated two years of bench rot here.�
Brian St. Pierre	2006, including RFA season	0.34	0.28M/0.31M	For the most part, looked awful in preseason action and then sat down.� Projects as a system QB, if that.

Discussion:

Tommy Maddox was the NFL�s comeback player of the year in 2002 but certainly came back to earth last season.� Playing behind an O-line that started abysmally and never rose above bad, playing in front of a tandem of RB who got about nothing done, playing in a checkdown passing system lacking any checkdown receivers, it�s not surprising that Maddox struggled.� Sure, some QB did more despite similar issues: McNair had no run game, Hasselbeck got sacked a lot and so on.� This suggests that Maddox is not in the top set of QB in the game but can�t be extended to rule him out as a reasonably capable starter.� IMO, the jury remains out on this player; considering his performance down the 2002 stretch, I think it�s reasonable to project that he can be a solid complement in a balanced offense.� Of course, within the Cowher Era, balance has rarely described the PS attack; generally, it�s been run-run or chuck and duck.� Regardless, Maddox�s resurrection reprise rests the following issues:

Field vision:� In 2003, Maddox regressed in this regard.� Too often, Maddox locks onto his primary, ignoring any number of open secondary, tertiary receivers.� He�s got to get in the film room this off-season, and I�m not talking about vetting Kill Bill.

Pocket presence:� Maddox took some strides in this area late in 2002 but again regressed in 2003.� Part of that has to do with the O-line especially the right side where, especially with Simmons, the linemen seldom performed to the level of speed bump.� Still, it is what it is and Maddox has got to improve his lateral movement.

Ball fakes:� Stunningly awful; on play action, Maddox tends to snatch the snap and hoist the ball over his head, then drop it down as he pedals past the RB, to get in pass mode.� This is entirely different than his comportment on straight-up runs, or on other pass plays; it advertises pass and, maybe as a consequence, the Steelers� run action gets little acknowledgment.�

Though 32 or so, Maddox is far from a finished product; that�s not good, especially considering that he�s not exactly a dominating athletic talent.� Still, he does have some leadership ability; he did survive a brutal beating last year (and what were the odds?).� Far and away though, the biggest problem here is inconsistency, especially as that leads to clustered giveaways.� Consider this list of 2004 PO teams, with the PS interloping:

Number of giveaways:

St. Louis: 39, 23 INT/16 fumbles.

Baltimore: 38, 19/19.

Green Bay: 32, 21/11.

Carolina:� 31, 16/15.��

Seattle: 29, 16/13.

Dallas: 29, 21/8.

Pittsburgh: 28, 17/11.��

New England: 24, 13/11.

Denver: 24, 20/4.

Philly: 22, 11/11.

Tennessee: 21, 9/12.

Indy: 20, 10/10.

KC: 18, 12/6.

In this set, the Steelers are in the middle of the playoff pack: (6) PO teams had more, (6) less.� INT-wise, (5) had more, (7) less; of the latter, two (Carolina and Seattle) had just (1) fewer.� Of course, teams don�t win giving it up but quite obviously, several gave it up more, and won anyway.� One aspect is in takeaway margin (though off point here); the PS was (-3) in that regard; only (3) PO teams were worse:� Denver and Dallas (-4) and Carolina (-5).� At the other end?� KC (+19) and NE (+17); even St. Louis, giveaway leader, was on the plus side (+7).

Still, clustered give-ups will kill most teams, as we�ve seen repeatedly in the Maddox interregnum.� However, by typical standards here, the Steelers are set at QB.� After all, Maddox is one of three in PS history with a positive TD/INT ratio (the others are NOD and Bradshaw); Charlie Batch is on the plus side too (in his Lions� career) so, relative to what they usually have, the PS is good to go at this position.

�

A look back, an ordered list of cap hits for projected 2004 O-side starters:

Player	Cap Hit ($M)	Remarks
Alan Faneca	5.10	Pro Bowl fixture and projects to be so for years to come.� Likely, the best OG in PS history.
Jeff Hartings	(4.98)	Has been a solid player but the Steelers are paying the cost for their unbroken string of failures from �96-�99 in drafting O-linemen.� Effectiveness has been reduced by injury; at this point, is no bargain at nearly 5M per.��
Marvel Smith	3.25	Durability has to be an issue with this player; Smith missed a chunk of time in his rookie season, and most of 2003.� Still, is a young player and presuming his injury was truly a pinched nerve, not something structural, should be a fixture through the term of his deal.
Spike Burress	2.25	By no means a franchise player; therefore, the PS FO is faced with this: deal him now and get something or lose him post-2004 for nothing at all.
Hines Ward	2.17	Another Pro Bowl fixture: far-sighted deal by the FO as cap value has been identical each year from 2001-2005.
Oliver Ross	2.12	Steelers cast this player as a Justin Strylzcek type, a capable fill-in at (4) spots on the O-line.� However, Ross is no Strylzcek; while he has been durable, he hasn�t been effective.� 2004 should be his last in B&G.
Tommy Maddox	1.30	Reportedly, the PS FO has promised to upgrade this player�s pay from 2004 forward.� IMO, that has merit; however, that bump should be limited into the Jeff Blake/Jake Delhomme range (2.0-2.5M/yr.).� If the Steeler FO reneges, then they should sack up and deal Maddox, riding on with Batch, Frenchy and draft pick-x.
Kendall Simmons	1.14	Is far from a road-grader, has problems making contact on the second level; really doesn�t figure as an OG in any system.� Best bet is at OC, a position where both his strengths and vulnerabilities dovetail most effectively.
Jerame Tuman	1.12	Arrived as a pass catcher but in five years has contributed little in that aspect.� Is not a quality starter, is a marginal backup but is the absolute best on the PS roster.

�The sum is 23.43M; only (9) players are included as, at the moment, Kreider isn�t under contract and both RB are regarded as cuts.� In this scenario Bettis (4.76), AZ (2.74), Breuner (3.00), Reimersma (1.43) and Fordham (0.63) are removed pre-June 1; that�s (12.56M) off the 2004 cap (gross) and (5.85M) clear.� IMO, Hartings is a candidate for re-structuring, certainly, his cap figure and play are mismatched; however, any such re-do would lard the 2005-06 numbers.�

Tabulating all prior entries with some possible O-side extensions on the following criteria:

The PS must establish a team identity.� As they waffled on the D-side last season, playing Rush 4, Cover 2 with zone blitz, Cover 3 personnel so have they morphed from a power running team to a vertical pass team to a no-run, WCO team, all the while lacking the personnel to accomplish that transformation.

Given their multiple deficiencies, it is far more important to clear 2005 cap space than to make the kind of adjustments that are generally called <cap-friendly> deals. �For example, Mark Breuner has benefited from a series of such with the consequence that he�s on the cap long past his true utility.� Three are some hard decisions to make, all the harder because those have been so long deferred.

Overall, the goal should be to enter every off-season some 10M below the cap.� That�s Eagle mode, which has served that franchise well.� The prime means is to forego Contract 3 deals; beyond that, this kind of fiscal flexibility recognizes that team improvement is a 12-month per year proposition.� There�s the draft, the first wave of FA, June 1 CC and late cuts (eg: Lawyer Milloy).� In general, the PS has been poorly positioned to deal with the later three, and that�s got to stop.

Player	Cut prior to FA?	Re-negotiate downward?	Re-sign or extend	Remarks
Hartings	No	No	No	You�d like to re-do Hartings� deal to clear space in 2004 but the effects on downstream caps would be catastrophic.� Cut after the 2004 season would clear minimum 2.22M from the 2005 books.
Okobi			Yes	Minimum tender; review after draft.
Vincent			Yes	As above.
Ross	No but possibly later	No	No	With an FA OT, Ross could drop to #3, add a quality draft pick at the spot and (with Faneca as an OT on an emergency basis) Ross could be expendable.� Timing-wise, that suggests Ross might be a cut/trade deep into camp, if at all.�
Nkwenti			I guess	An athlete but has not developed as a player; miniscule game experience, evidently, is injury prone.� Unless he�s #3 of better this year, FO should cut their losses with this player.�
Fordham	Yes, clear 0.37M		No	FA mistake: had little and has nothing left.� FO should cut their losses with this player
Breuner	Yes, clear 1.2M	No	No	Steelers need to clear the 2005 books; cut now would clear 3.00M then, 1.2M now.
Reimersma	Yes, clear 0.86M	No	No	FA bust, FO should cut their losses; cut now would clear about 1.53M from 2005 books.
Cushing			Maybe	There�s certainly no hurry to extend this player, since there figures to be little competition for his services
Bettis	Yes, clear 1.76M	Review after draft	Maybe	Steelers need to clear the 2005 books; cut now would clear 5.62M then, 1.76M now.
Zereoue	Yes, clear 1.66M	No	No	Not the guy; Steelers need to clear the 2005 books; cut now would clear 2.84M then, 1.66M now.
Kreider			Yes	Quality player but his role is limited in today�s NFL.
Burress	Trade would clear 0.92M			For WR, franchise tag may approach 7M in 2005.
Doering			Yes, min.	A good pro with limited ability.� Height should make him an RZ target but was little used in that role last season.� A younger FA (say, Drew Bennett) would make this player expendable.
Maddox
	5.85M With a Plax deal, 6.77M.		3 RFA: �+/-1.95M. Kreider: �+/- 1M. Doering: +/- 0.5M Sum: +/- 3.45M	Cutting Bettis, Breuner, JR and Zereoue now would clear about 12.99M from the 2005 books.� Presuming Hartings is gone after 2004, the clear would be a minimum of 15.21M on this side of the ball.

In what amounts to about the best case, the PS might clear 5.85-6.77 from their O-side obligation, 2004.� Recall that the 2004 D-side Overview called for removing Alex, Gildon and DW for 4.24M clear; add about (2.2-2.5) re-negotiating Scott�s deal and the dual-side clear sums as (10.09-13.51) which is approaching real money.� Against that, 1.26 or so for D-side RFA Bailey and Iwuoma; 3.45 for O-side players or 4.61M.� Of course, you can think of that as a sort of Christmas account (banking cash temporarily) towards, say, the rookie pool, if you�re looking to replace some of those RFA this spring.� Still, under this (twin) Overview scenario, the PS could enter the coming FA market with ((10.09-13.51)-4.61= 5.48-8.90M).� �Not great, but enough to make several mid-tier moves, or a couple higher profile acquisitions.

More significantly, the 2005 combined clear is 10.21M D and 12.99 O or 23.20M; add Hartings at 2.22M and the PS would clear 25.42M, all the cap flexibility required.� IMO, that�s got to be the goal; this team is not likely to contend in 2004 but certainly could be re-positioned in the year following.

�

Summary of O-side need, all positions.

	Draft prospects	FA	From within	Remarks
Snow plow RT	Shawn Andrews Nat Dorsey Kelly Butler Brian Rimpf	Todd Wade	None	A power running team is looking for a snowplow; a 4-wide team is looking for a finesse player.� Pick.
Road grader RG	Vernon Carey Chris Snee Steve Peterman	Jeno James	Keydrick Vincent?	As above.
The next Dirt Dawson	None	None	Kendall Simmons?
Franchise QB	If any available, Phillip Rivers	$$$$$	None
Do-it-all RB	Steve Jackson Chris Perry Julius Jones Adim Echemandu	$$$$$	None	Just because the PS need one doesn�t mean there is one.
Replacement WR	Many	Dez White Tai Streets	None	In the draft this spring, there are 6-8 first day WR prospects with Burress-like size.
TE	Kellen Winslow Ben Troupe Ben Watson Jason Peters	None	None	The Steelers don�t use TE as receivers and therefore no quality FA would be willing to come here.

Like this? Share it with friends:

2004 O-side Overview

February 01, 2004 by Steel Phantom

A. Faneca

RFA

RFA

RFA

(M. Bruener)

UFA

EFA

Alan Faneca

Chris Perry