Steelers 2008 (2 Viewers)

[Drunken Cowboy]

Speaking of Tall WR's:

I am the biggest proponent of drafting lineman. We need them on both sides of the ball, but there isn't anybody I really like that is likely to be around when the Steelers draft. What about drafting James Hardy? He is maybe the biggest WR I have ever seen.

 

[Godsbrother]

The Steelers need to sure up that line before even thinking of taking a WR. If there is no lineman worth taking at 23 then trade down and get a couple in the 2nd round.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

The Steelers need to sure up that line before even thinking of taking a WR. If there is no lineman worth taking at 23 then trade down and get a couple in the 2nd round.

I would love to see a trade down. It only works if somebody wants to trade into your spot though. Shortening the pick time will also really cut into trades.

 

[Godsbrother]

Heinz field sod has been removed.

NFL Notebook: Heinz Field sod removed; is turf next?Wednesday, January 30, 2008From local and wire dispatchesThe Steelers are tearing out the grass at Heinz Field, but not because they have decided to install an artificial surface.Less than a month after their season ended at home with a playoff defeat to the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Steelers are removing the sod that was laid over their primary DDGrassMaster surface in November in an attempt to make the field more playable and presentable.It does not mean they have made any final decision to replace their grass field, which includes small synthetic fibers, with some type of artificial surface. The discussion to switch to another surface has been on-going and a decision will be made shortly."That was something we had to do anyway," said Steelers spokesman Dave Lockett. "No decision has been made in regard to what we will do with the field."The Steelers installed the sod, at a cost of $150,000, in an attempt to improve the field. But because the sod covered the drainage system that was installed with the original surface, Heinz Field was turned into a soggy, muddy mess for a Nov. 26 game against the Miami Dolphins after a severe thunderstorm.Many of the Steelers players and coach Mike Tomlin are in favor of retaining a grass surface at Heinz Field, primarily because it reduces the amount of stress on joints.

 

[CrossEyed]

Steelers sticking with the mud.

Steelers will stay with grass at Heinz FieldFriday, February 08, 2008By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-GazetteThe Steelers have decided to stick with grass at Heinz Field, but they have not yet determined what kind it will be, sources confirmed.Although Steelers President Art Rooney and chairman Dan Rooney each declined to comment, sources told the Post-Gazette that during meetings the past week, they decided not to install any kind of artificial turf.And on Thursday, Jimmie Sacco, Heinz Field executive director of stadium development, said at a Stadium Managers Association conference, that the Steelers want to stick with grass."That's what the players want,'' Sports Business Daily quoted him as saying.They may stay with the DDGrassMaster that has been the playing surface for most of Heinz Field's seven years, or switch to some sort of pure grass or sod.Dan Rooney has been in favor of grass since Heinz Field opened, citing his players' overwhelming support for such a surface and surveys he says indicate fewer and less serious injuries occur on grass fields. DDGrassMaster is grass that is secured with fibers.However, NFL Players Association surveys consistently put Heinz Field near the bottom of the league in playing surfaces.

 

[Sheriff66]

 

[Idiot Boxer]

LJ Shelton anyone?

 

[kethnaab]

thoughts on the Matt Strannon signing?

dude is 6'6, 235 WR from Michigan State. Interesting...Ben asks for a tall WR, he gets one a week later.

 

[Irish]

thoughts on the Matt Strannon signing? dude is 6'6, 235 WR from Michigan State. Interesting...Ben asks for a tall WR, he gets one a week later.

I think you got a typo....Matt Trannon

 

[jetpack]

LJ Shelton anyone?

Here's one perspective of L J: Link.Tomlin said he wants to get younger on the lines anyways.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

As just posted in the Goddell/Spector thread:

Senator Specter Says the Patriots Taped the Steelers Twice During 2004 Season

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/13/...rs-twice-durin/

Well, it looks like Senator Arlen Specter didn't get around to talking about the NFL's antitrust exemption during today's meet-and-greet with commissioner Roger Goodell. As Michael David Smith wrote earlier, Specter learned that the Patriots have been videotaping opponents since 2000, something that wasn't clear when the league concluded its investigation in September.

In a post-meeting press conference, Specter elaborated. The senator said that "there were notes showing that the Steelers games had been taped." Specifically, two contests during the 2004 season: one on Oct. 31, and the other, the AFC Championship, on Jan. 27.

A couple of things worth pointing out: Pittsburgh smoked the Patriots in the first meeting, 34-20, sacking Tom Brady four times and picking him off twice. Three months later, the two teams met in the conference finals. Unsurprisingly (in hindsight), the Patriots won 41-27, and Brady, sacked just twice in the rematch, finished 14 of 21 for 207 yards with two touchdowns and no interceptions.

Did New England gain an advantage from having videotaped Pittsburgh during the teams' first meeting? There isn't enough evidence to say that, yes, unequivocally the Patriots won because they had the Steelers' defensive signals. But it would also be naïve to suggest that having access to that information had no bearing on the outcome. If that were true, Matthew Estrella (and Matt Walsh before him) wouldn't have had a job.

Either way, this doesn't do much for the Patriots' legacy as one of the best teams in NFL history, and it doesn't do much for Roger Goodell's credibility.

I also wonder if Bill Cowher might want to reconsider his earlier thoughts on the Steelers' other AFC Championship game against the Patriots.

 

[kethnaab]

thoughts on the Matt Strannon signing? dude is 6'6, 235 WR from Michigan State. Interesting...Ben asks for a tall WR, he gets one a week later.

I think you got a typo....Matt Trannon

yessir. dunno wtf I stuck the "s" in there foranyone seen the cat? He apparently played at MichState and couldn't make it in Arizona (no surprise there)

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

As just posted in the Goddell/Spector thread:

Senator Specter Says the Patriots Taped the Steelers Twice During 2004 Season

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/13/...rs-twice-durin/

Well, it looks like Senator Arlen Specter didn't get around to talking about the NFL's antitrust exemption during today's meet-and-greet with commissioner Roger Goodell. As Michael David Smith wrote earlier, Specter learned that the Patriots have been videotaping opponents since 2000, something that wasn't clear when the league concluded its investigation in September.

In a post-meeting press conference, Specter elaborated. The senator said that "there were notes showing that the Steelers games had been taped." Specifically, two contests during the 2004 season: one on Oct. 31, and the other, the AFC Championship, on Jan. 27.

A couple of things worth pointing out: Pittsburgh smoked the Patriots in the first meeting, 34-20, sacking Tom Brady four times and picking him off twice. Three months later, the two teams met in the conference finals. Unsurprisingly (in hindsight), the Patriots won 41-27, and Brady, sacked just twice in the rematch, finished 14 of 21 for 207 yards with two touchdowns and no interceptions.

Did New England gain an advantage from having videotaped Pittsburgh during the teams' first meeting? There isn't enough evidence to say that, yes, unequivocally the Patriots won because they had the Steelers' defensive signals. But it would also be naïve to suggest that having access to that information had no bearing on the outcome. If that were true, Matthew Estrella (and Matt Walsh before him) wouldn't have had a job.

Either way, this doesn't do much for the Patriots' legacy as one of the best teams in NFL history, and it doesn't do much for Roger Goodell's credibility.

I also wonder if Bill Cowher might want to reconsider his earlier thoughts on the Steelers' other AFC Championship game against the Patriots.

I'll be interested to see if Bill Cowher has any comment on this, I know Belichick and he have high regard for each other. When the whole spygate thing broke I recall some Steelers (Hines Ward) saying they did think it was uncanny how the Pats were always in the right place at the right time. Very interesting, good for Specter for looking into it for his constituents in Philly and Pittsburgh.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

thoughts on the Matt Strannon signing? dude is 6'6, 235 WR from Michigan State. Interesting...Ben asks for a tall WR, he gets one a week later.

I think you got a typo....Matt Trannon

yessir. dunno wtf I stuck the "s" in there foranyone seen the cat? He apparently played at MichState and couldn't make it in Arizona (no surprise there)

He seems to have NFL athleticism, but Michigan State seemed to use him on screen and short passes that called for run after catch a lot, which left me . I know none other than the esteemed Chaos Commish liked Trannon - so that's enough for me to feel a little about this signing.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Hines Ward, when the whole Spygate thing broke:

QUOTE

"When we played them in the championship game, it seemed like they were a step ahead of us all the time," Hines Ward said yesterday. "You never know how long they've been doing this stuff. I heard they close part of their practices off to the media and that kind of thing. You hate to see it come to putting an asterisk by their championships, but I haven't heard of any other team doing something like this. I wouldn't put it past them.

"It is a crime and hopefully, [the penalty] will be stiff enough that no one else will try it."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07256/817097-13.stm

 

[Godsbrother]

If the Patriots broke the rules and illegally taped the signals during the first game and used it to an advantage to win the AFC Championship game then it certainly tarnishes their legacy.

However what does it say about the Steelers if they used the same signals for both games? I am betting Bill Cowher does not say the Patriots cheated because if he does he would be admitting that he was a dummy for not switching signals in the most important game of the year.

 

[kevinray]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

 

[fred_1_15301]

If the Patriots broke the rules and illegally taped the signals during the first game and used it to an advantage to win the AFC Championship game then it certainly tarnishes their legacy. However what does it say about the Steelers if they used the same signals for both games? I am betting Bill Cowher does not say the Patriots cheated because if he does he would be admitting that he was a dummy for not switching signals in the most important game of the year.

I highly doubt the Patriots are the only team doing this and coaches have to be aware of it. If thats the reason the Steelers lost the game then shame on them.

 

[PhD]

If the Patriots broke the rules and illegally taped the signals during the first game and used it to an advantage to win the AFC Championship game then it certainly tarnishes their legacy. However what does it say about the Steelers if they used the same signals for both games? I am betting Bill Cowher does not say the Patriots cheated because if he does he would be admitting that he was a dummy for not switching signals in the most important game of the year.

True. But I'm a little confused here - by "taping" is it meant that the Pats used tapes from one game to help in the next? or that they taped during the game and broke down film as the game progressed and used the information in the same game (ie, especially in the second half)?

 

[kevinray]

If the Patriots broke the rules and illegally taped the signals during the first game and used it to an advantage to win the AFC Championship game then it certainly tarnishes their legacy. However what does it say about the Steelers if they used the same signals for both games? I am betting Bill Cowher does not say the Patriots cheated because if he does he would be admitting that he was a dummy for not switching signals in the most important game of the year.

True. But I'm a little confused here - by "taping" is it meant that the Pats used tapes from one game to help in the next? or that they taped during the game and broke down film as the game progressed and used the information in the same game (ie, especially in the second half)?

The NFL's investigation showed that they didn't review any tapes during the game, and only had them for game film purposes. Now like a lot of people on this board you could believe the NFL is lying about that. I for one think it's the truth.

 

[Sheriff66]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

 

[kevinray]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. The rule the patriots violated was not having the camera in a proper area. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia page about itage 105 of the 2007 NFL "Game Operations Manual" states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

The facts are that you can film anything on the field of play that you want. The camera has to be in the right place and the information can't be sent to the team during the game. This is the most commonly confused part about spygate. If you have anything to disprove what I've said I'd honestly be ecstatic to hear it but this is my understanding of the situation.

 

[Sheriff66]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. The rule the patriots violated was not having the camera in a proper area. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia page about itage 105 of the 2007 NFL "Game Operations Manual" states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

The facts are that you can film anything on the field of play that you want. The camera has to be in the right place and the information can't be sent to the team during the game. This is the most commonly confused part about spygate. If you have anything to disprove what I've said I'd honestly be ecstatic to hear it but this is my understanding of the situation.

No, I'm not.

 

[kevinray]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. The rule the patriots violated was not having the camera in a proper area. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia page about itage 105 of the 2007 NFL "Game Operations Manual" states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

The facts are that you can film anything on the field of play that you want. The camera has to be in the right place and the information can't be sent to the team during the game. This is the most commonly confused part about spygate. If you have anything to disprove what I've said I'd honestly be ecstatic to hear it but this is my understanding of the situation.

No, I'm not.

Ok... good rebuttal. Care to elaborate?

 

[fred_1_15301]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. The rule the patriots violated was not having the camera in a proper area. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia page about it:

 

[kevinray]

An additional support is taken from Goodell’s news conference on 2-1-08.

"They may have collected that information within the rules of the NFL, but we felt it was appropriate, since we couldn't determine it, that we take all of it."

Goodell conference

If the act of filming a coordinator is illegal then why would Goodell say that they may have collected it within the rules of the NFL? If the act of filming a coordinator at all would be illegal then there wouldn't be that doubt of whether they were obtained illegally or not.

 

[kevinray]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. The rule the patriots violated was not having the camera in a proper area. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia page about it:

So you don't think Wiki is a good enough source. I can understand that, but it's referencing the rule from the NFL rule book. If you can pull a rule from the book that says its illegal to film a coordinator I'd be happy to see it.ETA: Here’s the link to the original NFL.com story about the rule violation and the rule they violated.

NFL.com story

Patriots under investigation for following rules, guidelines violations ...

1. Page 105 of the Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

2. And, a memo from Ray Anderson, NFL head of football operations, to head coaches and GMs on Sept. 6, 2006 said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

 

[Sheriff66]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. The rule the patriots violated was not having the camera in a proper area. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia page about itage 105 of the 2007 NFL "Game Operations Manual" states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

The facts are that you can film anything on the field of play that you want. The camera has to be in the right place and the information can't be sent to the team during the game. This is the most commonly confused part about spygate. If you have anything to disprove what I've said I'd honestly be ecstatic to hear it but this is my understanding of the situation.

No, I'm not.

Ok... good rebuttal. Care to elaborate?

Here you goHere are some of the league's rules regarding videotaping procedures:

• In the NFL's operations manual, it states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

• In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

• In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

 

[kevinray]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. The rule the patriots violated was not having the camera in a proper area. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia page about itage 105 of the 2007 NFL "Game Operations Manual" states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

The facts are that you can film anything on the field of play that you want. The camera has to be in the right place and the information can't be sent to the team during the game. This is the most commonly confused part about spygate. If you have anything to disprove what I've said I'd honestly be ecstatic to hear it but this is my understanding of the situation.

No, I'm not.

Ok... good rebuttal. Care to elaborate?

Here you goHere are some of the league's rules regarding videotaping procedures:

• In the NFL's operations manual, it states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

• In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

• In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

You should read those again. Nowhere do they say you can’t videotape an opponents signals just that you can't do so on the sidelines coaches booth or locker room. You’re allowed to videotape anything on the field if the camera is in the right place.

 

[Sheriff66]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. The rule the patriots violated was not having the camera in a proper area. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia page about itage 105 of the 2007 NFL "Game Operations Manual" states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

The facts are that you can film anything on the field of play that you want. The camera has to be in the right place and the information can't be sent to the team during the game. This is the most commonly confused part about spygate. If you have anything to disprove what I've said I'd honestly be ecstatic to hear it but this is my understanding of the situation.

No, I'm not.

Ok... good rebuttal. Care to elaborate?

Here you goHere are some of the league's rules regarding videotaping procedures:

• In the NFL's operations manual, it states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

• In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

• In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

You should read those again. Nowhere do they say you can’t videotape an opponents signals just that you can't do so on the sidelines coaches booth or locker room. You’re allowed to videotape anything on the field if the camera is in the right place.

 

[kevinray]

I'd really hate to get into another Patriot argument again. They did violate a rule but the filming of the defensive coordinator is legal so I agree that if the Steelers used the same signals then they were asking to be interpreted. I don't know if they did but if the Steelers wanted to film the Patriots they probably did, and whether they did so legally would be up in the air since illegal filming was so common then. I just have a hard time seeing how some could gain such an advantage filming legally and filming illegally that it would have had an effect on the game.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. The rule the patriots violated was not having the camera in a proper area. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia page about itage 105 of the 2007 NFL "Game Operations Manual" states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

The facts are that you can film anything on the field of play that you want. The camera has to be in the right place and the information can't be sent to the team during the game. This is the most commonly confused part about spygate. If you have anything to disprove what I've said I'd honestly be ecstatic to hear it but this is my understanding of the situation.

No, I'm not.

Ok... good rebuttal. Care to elaborate?

Here you goHere are some of the league's rules regarding videotaping procedures:

• In the NFL's operations manual, it states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

• In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

• In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

You should read those again. Nowhere do they say you can’t videotape an opponents signals just that you can't do so on the sidelines coaches booth or locker room. You’re allowed to videotape anything on the field if the camera is in the right place.

You're killing me dude. You realize if the rules were enforced the way your reading it teams wouldn't be allowed to get game film? If it was illegal to videotape of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, at all then you couldn't videotape the game to review. You can have a camera in the booth where the game film cameras are and focus it on the other teams coaches. You just can't have the camera anywhere the team can access during the game or there would be an opportunity to use that film during the game.I'd be interested to hear how you explain Goodells comments in post 76.

 

[Sheriff66]

You're killing me dude. You realize if the rules were enforced the way your reading it teams wouldn't be allowed to get game film? If it was illegal to videotape of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, at all then you couldn't videotape the game to review. You can have a camera in the booth where the game film cameras are and focus it on the other teams coaches. You just can't have the camera anywhere the team can access during the game or there would be an opportunity to use that film during the game.I'd be interested to hear how you explain Goodells comments in post 76.

You must be kidding..... , you can't be that dumb.This is the Steelers thread, if you're serious, god bless ya, I'm done talking about it in here.

 

[kevinray]

You're killing me dude. You realize if the rules were enforced the way your reading it teams wouldn't be allowed to get game film? If it was illegal to videotape of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, at all then you couldn't videotape the game to review. You can have a camera in the booth where the game film cameras are and focus it on the other teams coaches. You just can't have the camera anywhere the team can access during the game or there would be an opportunity to use that film during the game.I'd be interested to hear how you explain Goodells comments in post 76.

You must be kidding..... , you can't be that dumb.

I 'm serious. Everything the NFL has said about the rule violation refers to having the camera in an area that’s illegal is the crime. The act of filming coordinators signals is not prohibited by the NFL rules so long as the camera is stationed in an area that team personnel can't access during the game. I didn't want to get in the discussion in the first place so if you want to continue being wrong about it then that’s your problem. I'm still waiting to hear how Goodell says some of the tapes could have been acquired legally if filming a coordinator is illegal.

 

[poopdawg]

You're killing me dude. You realize if the rules were enforced the way your reading it teams wouldn't be allowed to get game film? If it was illegal to videotape of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, at all then you couldn't videotape the game to review. You can have a camera in the booth where the game film cameras are and focus it on the other teams coaches. You just can't have the camera anywhere the team can access during the game or there would be an opportunity to use that film during the game.

I'd be interested to hear how you explain Goodells comments in post 76.

You must be kidding..... , you can't be that dumb.

I 'm serious. Everything the NFL has said about the rule violation refers to having the camera in an area that’s illegal is the crime. The act of filming coordinators signals is not prohibited by the NFL rules so long as the camera is stationed in an area that team personnel can't access during the game. I didn't want to get in the discussion in the first place so if you want to continue being wrong about it then that’s your problem. I'm still waiting to hear how Goodell says some of the tapes could have been acquired legally if filming a coordinator is illegal.

I think youre misreading Goodell's quote. Think of a crime scene. There are certain procedures that must be followed (ie. search warrants, etc) in order to obtain evidence. Goodell was simply saying that they obtained the tapes by following the proper procedures. That does not mean in any way that the act itself of filming in this case is legal.ETA - I forgot this was the Steelers thread. Lets move 'er on over to the other thread.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08046/857665-66.stm

Specter: Patriots filmed Steelers 4 times

Friday, February 15, 2008

By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter said yesterday that he has a list of witnesses and will pursue the "Spygate" case against the New England Patriots that he said involved four games against the Steelers, including two AFC championship games.

"I think Steelers fans have a lot to be concerned about this and I'm one of them,'' Mr. Specter told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an interview yesterday, adding that "maybe Steelers ownership should think about it a little."

Specter met with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for more than an hour Wednesday to discuss why evidence turned over by the Patriots that documented their illegal videotaping of opposing coaches' signals was destroyed. He said he was not satisfied with Mr. Goodell's explanation.

"I questioned him very closely why they destroyed the tapes and notes,'' said Mr. Specter, a Republican and the senior senator from Pennsylvania. "He gave an answer that made no sense, saying they destroyed them so no one could gain a competitive advantage. But if they put them under lock and key, they couldn't have access to them."

Greg Aiello, NFL senior vice president of public relations, referred to Mr. Goodell's news conference on Wednesday, where the commissioner said, "I think we are going to agree to disagree on certain things, including my view that we had an admission of guilt and, therefore, there was no reason for the tapes to be kept."

Mr. Specter said he specifically asked if they had any notes on the Steelers that were destroyed, and said NFL lawyer Jeffrey Pass indicated notes turned over by the Patriots indicated that four games were involved -- the AFC championship games in Heinz Field at the end of the 2001 and 2004 seasons, and two regular-season games in 2002 and 2004. The Steelers lost three of those games, winning in the regular season in 2004.

"The commissioner confirmed the taping had been going on since the year 2000,'' Mr. Specter said. "He made no valid explanation for [destroying the evidence]. There are a couple other major problems he had, to say the least."

One problem, the senator said, is that Mr. Goodell imposed a $500,000 fine on Patriots coach Bill Belichick, a $250,000 fine on the team and docked them a first-round draft pick this year before the commissioner learned New England's illegal taping had been more widespread.

The commissioner issued the punishment after a Patriots cameraman was caught taping signals of the New York Jets in their first meeting this season. He then ordered the Patriots to turn over any evidence they had of such taping, including notes. Afterward, no other evidence of illegal taping was mentioned by the league at the time.

"The taping occurred on Sept. 9,'' Mr. Specter noted. "He imposed the fine on the 13th, didn't get the material until the 17th and destroyed it on the 20th. He imposed the fine before he had the notes and tapes.''

Mr. Specter said he may hold hearings into the case, which also possibly involved the Philadelphia Eagles, who lost to the Patriots in the Super Bowl after the 2004 season.

He said one witness he's talking to is Matt Walsh, the former Patriots video director who may have been involved in taping the St. Louis Rams' walk-through practice the day before they lost to the Patriots on Feb. 3, 2002.

"Matt Walsh is the guy who supposedly taped the walk-through on the Rams game,'' Mr. Specter said. "The picture's starting to fit together. I've been talking to Walsh's lawyer.''

Mr. Specter said the lawyer indicated Mr. Walsh was being investigated "by a guy named **** Farley, who is an NFL security guy and a former FBI agent.

"I asked Goodell about it and he said Farley does work for NFL security but that he didn't know anything about it.

"The plot thickens.''

Mr. Aiello said yesterday that Mr. Farley is looking at public records and verifying Mr. Walsh's employment history.

Mr. Specter said he's been informed that the practice of Mr. Belichick's staff illegally taping opposing coaches goes back to his days in the 1990s when he coached the old Cleveland Browns. He said Mr. Goodell told him they never looked into that.

"When you have a pattern,'' Mr. Specter said, "you look for when the pattern started.''

The senator said Mr. Goodell told him he has no more plans to investigate "Spygate.''

"He has a fair-sized stone wall erected,'' Mr. Specter said.

Said Mr. Goodell at his news conference Wednesday, "We're not following up; the senator said he wants to follow up."

Former Steelers coach Bill Cowher, reached at his home in North Carolina yesterday, said:

"Is it an advantage to steal signals? Yes. Did it determine the outcome of the game? No.''

Steelers spokesman Dave Lockett also said that club officials believe that the results of the game did not hinge on stolen signals.

When new Steelers coach Mike Tomlin first heard about the incident with the New England cameraman in New York, he said at his weekly press conference, "Where there's smoke, there's fire.''

To those who believe the NFL is trying to cover up and minimize "Spygate," Mr. Goodell said Wednesday, "We are the ones who discovered the violation and disclosed it. If we were trying to cover something up, we wouldn't have taken the discipline we did and we wouldn't have brought the situation to light. We have been very clear about what happened. There was a violation of our policy."

Ed Bouchette can be reached at ebouchette@post-gazette.com.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

This hasn't been discussed by anyone that I've seen so I may be off... but I wonder if the Steelers concern in pursuing this issue is that it opens Pandora's Box for a potential fans' lawsuit against the league. If all these Pats Spygate games aren't considered to be legally fair contests I would guess that fans who bought tickets expecting a fair competition would have some rights to retain their money.

 

[Irish]

This hasn't been discussed by anyone that I've seen so I may be off... but I wonder if the Steelers concern in pursuing this issue is that it opens Pandora's Box for a potential fans' lawsuit against the league. If all these Pats Spygate games aren't considered to be legally fair contests I would guess that fans who bought tickets expecting a fair competition would have some rights to retain their money.

The Steelers will not pursue this issue because the Rooney's have always looked out for the best interest of the league as a whole instead of what is best for just their franchise. I agree there is more to the story than the NFL is letting on, but what will really come of it? The league is not going to take any Lombardi trophies away from NE.

 

[Godsbrother]

Grabbed this from the Updated Salary Cap thread. I thought it was pretty interesting:

20. Pittsburgh Steelers ($19m under) – OT Max Starks, FB Dan Kreider, DE Travis Kirschke and DE Nick Eason are unrestricted free agents that would eat up some money if resigned. All might walk. OT Trai Essex is restricted and will get a 3rd round tender compensation. That might be enough to keep him. OG Chris Kemoeatu is also restricted. Kemoeatu is set to inherit the starting gig when Alan Faneca walks: they better tender him at the highest level for $2.56 million (1st and 3rd round). LB Clark Haggans will hit the market unrestricted and grab a nice contract. RFA WR Nate Washington will likely be snatched away due to a low tender offer by Pittsburgh. They can cut OT Marvel Smith and free up $4 million. Every year a couple Steelers step up and re-do their contracts to free up $4-5m: Last year it was Casey Hampton and Ryan Clark. Free Agency – Pittsburgh fans like FA WR Bryant Johnson (Arz) because he went to Penn State. He’d actually be a good fit, plus he’s a bigger WR like Ben Roethlisberger warbled about last month. C Jeff Faine (NO) is also a targeted free agent. LB is always a hot topic in Pittsburgh. They have 2nd year man LaMarr Woodley filling in for the soon-to-be-gone Clark Haggans, but they could use a new young inside guy. Offensive line is really their main concern; they might give OT Nat Dorsey (Cle) or OT Kwame Harris (SF) a look.

I think the Steelers will try to re-sign Starks but will likely let Kreider go. Neither Kirschke and Eason are anything to write home about but it would be tough to cut both when you are already thin at DE. Essex played well last year and I agree he'll get the 3rd round tender. The Steelers better be darn sure about Kemoeatu if they tender him at $2.56 million -- he hasn't shown much and that is an awful lot to pay a backup.Haggans is definitely gone but I think the Steelers will sign Washington before FA or match any reasonable offer. I don't see them cutting Marvel Smith unless they re-sign Starks.As for possible FAs, I don't see them throwing a lot of money around. I don't see the allure of Bryant Johnson -- would he really be abn upgrade over Nate Washington and Cedric Wilson? I don't think so. On the other hand Faine would be an upgrade over Mahan (my mother might also be an upgrade over Mahan). Plus it would irk the Brownies fans which is always a good thing.I don't know much about Dorsey but I don't like what I've heard about Harris. I think I would rather stay with the OTs we have (Starks/Smith/Essex/Colon) and draft one or two than go after someone else's rejects.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Grabbed this from the Updated Salary Cap thread. I thought it was pretty interesting:

20. Pittsburgh Steelers ($19m under) – OT Max Starks, FB Dan Kreider, DE Travis Kirschke and DE Nick Eason are unrestricted free agents that would eat up some money if resigned. All might walk. OT Trai Essex is restricted and will get a 3rd round tender compensation. That might be enough to keep him. OG Chris Kemoeatu is also restricted. Kemoeatu is set to inherit the starting gig when Alan Faneca walks: they better tender him at the highest level for $2.56 million (1st and 3rd round). LB Clark Haggans will hit the market unrestricted and grab a nice contract. RFA WR Nate Washington will likely be snatched away due to a low tender offer by Pittsburgh. They can cut OT Marvel Smith and free up $4 million. Every year a couple Steelers step up and re-do their contracts to free up $4-5m: Last year it was Casey Hampton and Ryan Clark. Free Agency – Pittsburgh fans like FA WR Bryant Johnson (Arz) because he went to Penn State. He’d actually be a good fit, plus he’s a bigger WR like Ben Roethlisberger warbled about last month. C Jeff Faine (NO) is also a targeted free agent. LB is always a hot topic in Pittsburgh. They have 2nd year man LaMarr Woodley filling in for the soon-to-be-gone Clark Haggans, but they could use a new young inside guy. Offensive line is really their main concern; they might give OT Nat Dorsey (Cle) or OT Kwame Harris (SF) a look.

I think the Steelers will try to re-sign Starks but will likely let Kreider go. Neither Kirschke and Eason are anything to write home about but it would be tough to cut both when you are already thin at DE. Essex played well last year and I agree he'll get the 3rd round tender. The Steelers better be darn sure about Kemoeatu if they tender him at $2.56 million -- he hasn't shown much and that is an awful lot to pay a backup.Haggans is definitely gone but I think the Steelers will sign Washington before FA or match any reasonable offer. I don't see them cutting Marvel Smith unless they re-sign Starks.As for possible FAs, I don't see them throwing a lot of money around. I don't see the allure of Bryant Johnson -- would he really be abn upgrade over Nate Washington and Cedric Wilson? I don't think so. On the other hand Faine would be an upgrade over Mahan (my mother might also be an upgrade over Mahan). Plus it would irk the Brownies fans which is always a good thing.I don't know much about Dorsey but I don't like what I've heard about Harris. I think I would rather stay with the OTs we have (Starks/Smith/Essex/Colon) and draft one or two than go after someone else's rejects.

I agree with you. How the hell can they afford to cut Marvel?

 

[Sheriff66]

Grabbed this from the Updated Salary Cap thread. I thought it was pretty interesting:

20. Pittsburgh Steelers ($19m under) – OT Max Starks, FB Dan Kreider, DE Travis Kirschke and DE Nick Eason are unrestricted free agents that would eat up some money if resigned. All might walk. OT Trai Essex is restricted and will get a 3rd round tender compensation. That might be enough to keep him. OG Chris Kemoeatu is also restricted. Kemoeatu is set to inherit the starting gig when Alan Faneca walks: they better tender him at the highest level for $2.56 million (1st and 3rd round). LB Clark Haggans will hit the market unrestricted and grab a nice contract. RFA WR Nate Washington will likely be snatched away due to a low tender offer by Pittsburgh. They can cut OT Marvel Smith and free up $4 million. Every year a couple Steelers step up and re-do their contracts to free up $4-5m: Last year it was Casey Hampton and Ryan Clark.

Free Agency – Pittsburgh fans like FA WR Bryant Johnson (Arz) because he went to Penn State. He’d actually be a good fit, plus he’s a bigger WR like Ben Roethlisberger warbled about last month. C Jeff Faine (NO) is also a targeted free agent. LB is always a hot topic in Pittsburgh. They have 2nd year man LaMarr Woodley filling in for the soon-to-be-gone Clark Haggans, but they could use a new young inside guy. Offensive line is really their main concern; they might give OT Nat Dorsey (Cle) or OT Kwame Harris (SF) a look.

I think the Steelers will try to re-sign Starks but will likely let Kreider go. Neither Kirschke and Eason are anything to write home about but it would be tough to cut both when you are already thin at DE. Essex played well last year and I agree he'll get the 3rd round tender. The Steelers better be darn sure about Kemoeatu if they tender him at $2.56 million -- he hasn't shown much and that is an awful lot to pay a backup.Haggans is definitely gone but I think the Steelers will sign Washington before FA or match any reasonable offer. I don't see them cutting Marvel Smith unless they re-sign Starks.

As for possible FAs, I don't see them throwing a lot of money around. I don't see the allure of Bryant Johnson -- would he really be abn upgrade over Nate Washington and Cedric Wilson? I don't think so. On the other hand Faine would be an upgrade over Mahan (my mother might also be an upgrade over Mahan). Plus it would irk the Brownies fans which is always a good thing.

I don't know much about Dorsey but I don't like what I've heard about Harris. I think I would rather stay with the OTs we have (Starks/Smith/Essex/Colon) and draft one or two than go after someone else's rejects.

I think he would no doubt be an upgrade, a big one over Wilson, and a slight one over Washington.

 

[kevinray]

Grabbed this from the Updated Salary Cap thread. I thought it was pretty interesting:

20. Pittsburgh Steelers ($19m under) – OT Max Starks, FB Dan Kreider, DE Travis Kirschke and DE Nick Eason are unrestricted free agents that would eat up some money if resigned. All might walk. OT Trai Essex is restricted and will get a 3rd round tender compensation. That might be enough to keep him. OG Chris Kemoeatu is also restricted. Kemoeatu is set to inherit the starting gig when Alan Faneca walks: they better tender him at the highest level for $2.56 million (1st and 3rd round). LB Clark Haggans will hit the market unrestricted and grab a nice contract. RFA WR Nate Washington will likely be snatched away due to a low tender offer by Pittsburgh. They can cut OT Marvel Smith and free up $4 million. Every year a couple Steelers step up and re-do their contracts to free up $4-5m: Last year it was Casey Hampton and Ryan Clark.

Free Agency – Pittsburgh fans like FA WR Bryant Johnson (Arz) because he went to Penn State. He’d actually be a good fit, plus he’s a bigger WR like Ben Roethlisberger warbled about last month. C Jeff Faine (NO) is also a targeted free agent. LB is always a hot topic in Pittsburgh. They have 2nd year man LaMarr Woodley filling in for the soon-to-be-gone Clark Haggans, but they could use a new young inside guy. Offensive line is really their main concern; they might give OT Nat Dorsey (Cle) or OT Kwame Harris (SF) a look.

I think the Steelers will try to re-sign Starks but will likely let Kreider go. Neither Kirschke and Eason are anything to write home about but it would be tough to cut both when you are already thin at DE. Essex played well last year and I agree he'll get the 3rd round tender. The Steelers better be darn sure about Kemoeatu if they tender him at $2.56 million -- he hasn't shown much and that is an awful lot to pay a backup.Haggans is definitely gone but I think the Steelers will sign Washington before FA or match any reasonable offer. I don't see them cutting Marvel Smith unless they re-sign Starks.

As for possible FAs, I don't see them throwing a lot of money around. I don't see the allure of Bryant Johnson -- would he really be abn upgrade over Nate Washington and Cedric Wilson? I don't think so. On the other hand Faine would be an upgrade over Mahan (my mother might also be an upgrade over Mahan). Plus it would irk the Brownies fans which is always a good thing.

I don't know much about Dorsey but I don't like what I've heard about Harris. I think I would rather stay with the OTs we have (Starks/Smith/Essex/Colon) and draft one or two than go after someone else's rejects.

I think he would no doubt be an upgrade, a big one over Wilson, and a slight one over Washington.

I think he has more upside then both Wilson and Washington but he'll want more money then this team would want to give him. I doubt Johnson will break the bank or anything but I think the team would rather ride it out with the cheaper Wilson and Washington and potential 2nd day pick then go hunting for Johnson.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Grabbed this from the Updated Salary Cap thread. I thought it was pretty interesting:

20. Pittsburgh Steelers ($19m under) – OT Max Starks, FB Dan Kreider, DE Travis Kirschke and DE Nick Eason are unrestricted free agents that would eat up some money if resigned. All might walk. OT Trai Essex is restricted and will get a 3rd round tender compensation. That might be enough to keep him. OG Chris Kemoeatu is also restricted. Kemoeatu is set to inherit the starting gig when Alan Faneca walks: they better tender him at the highest level for $2.56 million (1st and 3rd round). LB Clark Haggans will hit the market unrestricted and grab a nice contract. RFA WR Nate Washington will likely be snatched away due to a low tender offer by Pittsburgh. They can cut OT Marvel Smith and free up $4 million. Every year a couple Steelers step up and re-do their contracts to free up $4-5m: Last year it was Casey Hampton and Ryan Clark.

Free Agency – Pittsburgh fans like FA WR Bryant Johnson (Arz) because he went to Penn State. He’d actually be a good fit, plus he’s a bigger WR like Ben Roethlisberger warbled about last month. C Jeff Faine (NO) is also a targeted free agent. LB is always a hot topic in Pittsburgh. They have 2nd year man LaMarr Woodley filling in for the soon-to-be-gone Clark Haggans, but they could use a new young inside guy. Offensive line is really their main concern; they might give OT Nat Dorsey (Cle) or OT Kwame Harris (SF) a look.

I think the Steelers will try to re-sign Starks but will likely let Kreider go. Neither Kirschke and Eason are anything to write home about but it would be tough to cut both when you are already thin at DE. Essex played well last year and I agree he'll get the 3rd round tender. The Steelers better be darn sure about Kemoeatu if they tender him at $2.56 million -- he hasn't shown much and that is an awful lot to pay a backup.Haggans is definitely gone but I think the Steelers will sign Washington before FA or match any reasonable offer. I don't see them cutting Marvel Smith unless they re-sign Starks.

As for possible FAs, I don't see them throwing a lot of money around. I don't see the allure of Bryant Johnson -- would he really be abn upgrade over Nate Washington and Cedric Wilson? I don't think so. On the other hand Faine would be an upgrade over Mahan (my mother might also be an upgrade over Mahan). Plus it would irk the Brownies fans which is always a good thing.

I don't know much about Dorsey but I don't like what I've heard about Harris. I think I would rather stay with the OTs we have (Starks/Smith/Essex/Colon) and draft one or two than go after someone else's rejects.

I think he would no doubt be an upgrade, a big one over Wilson, and a slight one over Washington.

I think he has more upside then both Wilson and Washington but he'll want more money then this team would want to give him. I doubt Johnson will break the bank or anything but I think the team would rather ride it out with the cheaper Wilson and Washington and potential 2nd day pick then go hunting for Johnson.

I don't see the Steerlers getting Johnson. He will probably want to start.I also don't see them cutting Smith unless his back is really bad.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

You guys are passing over the most interesting tidbit, which is the interest in Jeff Faine. That would be a quality pickup.

 

[Godsbrother]

You guys are passing over the most interesting tidbit, which is the interest in Jeff Faine. That would be a quality pickup.

I didn't pass over it:

On the other hand Faine would be an upgrade over Mahan (my mother might also be an upgrade over Mahan). Plus it would irk the Brownies fans which is always a good thing.

The question is will the Steelers admit they made a mistake with Mahan and get someone that can plat the position.

 

[kevinray]

You guys are passing over the most interesting tidbit, which is the interest in Jeff Faine. That would be a quality pickup.

I didn't pass over it:

On the other hand Faine would be an upgrade over Mahan (my mother might also be an upgrade over Mahan). Plus it would irk the Brownies fans which is always a good thing.

The question is will the Steelers admit they made a mistake with Mahan and get someone that can plat the position.

Man I hope so. I don't think Tomlin's the kind of person that would stubbornly stick by a player who can't get the job done, but with only a year of seeing him that’s really just a gut opinion. They really need to bring in some guys.

 

[Sheriff66]

Grabbed this from the Updated Salary Cap thread. I thought it was pretty interesting:

20. Pittsburgh Steelers ($19m under) – OT Max Starks, FB Dan Kreider, DE Travis Kirschke and DE Nick Eason are unrestricted free agents that would eat up some money if resigned. All might walk. OT Trai Essex is restricted and will get a 3rd round tender compensation. That might be enough to keep him. OG Chris Kemoeatu is also restricted. Kemoeatu is set to inherit the starting gig when Alan Faneca walks: they better tender him at the highest level for $2.56 million (1st and 3rd round). LB Clark Haggans will hit the market unrestricted and grab a nice contract. RFA WR Nate Washington will likely be snatched away due to a low tender offer by Pittsburgh. They can cut OT Marvel Smith and free up $4 million. Every year a couple Steelers step up and re-do their contracts to free up $4-5m: Last year it was Casey Hampton and Ryan Clark.

Free Agency – Pittsburgh fans like FA WR Bryant Johnson (Arz) because he went to Penn State. He’d actually be a good fit, plus he’s a bigger WR like Ben Roethlisberger warbled about last month. C Jeff Faine (NO) is also a targeted free agent. LB is always a hot topic in Pittsburgh. They have 2nd year man LaMarr Woodley filling in for the soon-to-be-gone Clark Haggans, but they could use a new young inside guy. Offensive line is really their main concern; they might give OT Nat Dorsey (Cle) or OT Kwame Harris (SF) a look.

I think the Steelers will try to re-sign Starks but will likely let Kreider go. Neither Kirschke and Eason are anything to write home about but it would be tough to cut both when you are already thin at DE. Essex played well last year and I agree he'll get the 3rd round tender. The Steelers better be darn sure about Kemoeatu if they tender him at $2.56 million -- he hasn't shown much and that is an awful lot to pay a backup.Haggans is definitely gone but I think the Steelers will sign Washington before FA or match any reasonable offer. I don't see them cutting Marvel Smith unless they re-sign Starks.

As for possible FAs, I don't see them throwing a lot of money around. I don't see the allure of Bryant Johnson -- would he really be abn upgrade over Nate Washington and Cedric Wilson? I don't think so. On the other hand Faine would be an upgrade over Mahan (my mother might also be an upgrade over Mahan). Plus it would irk the Brownies fans which is always a good thing.

I don't know much about Dorsey but I don't like what I've heard about Harris. I think I would rather stay with the OTs we have (Starks/Smith/Essex/Colon) and draft one or two than go after someone else's rejects.

I think he would no doubt be an upgrade, a big one over Wilson, and a slight one over Washington.

I think he has more upside then both Wilson and Washington but he'll want more money then this team would want to give him. I doubt Johnson will break the bank or anything but I think the team would rather ride it out with the cheaper Wilson and Washington and potential 2nd day pick then go hunting for Johnson.

I don't see the Steerlers getting Johnson. He will probably want to start.I also don't see them cutting Smith unless his back is really bad.

I agree he will want too much, but I was disagreeing with Godsbrother that he is not much of an upgrade, he would be for sure.

 

[analog_hiss]

I really wanted to just this thread, and I don't even want to bring up "Spygate" stuff. But I think this is a fitting response, so I would like to post it. The past is the past, and I prefer to look forward.

Steelers support NFL's response to spying by PatriotsFriday, February 15, 2008Pittsburgh Post-GazetteSteelers Chairman Dan Rooney said today that the team supports the NFL's response to the "Spygate" case against the New England Patriots and the punishment meted out by Commissioner Roger Goodell.In a statement released this morning, Rooney said:"We consider the tapes of our coaching staff during our games against the New England Patriots to be a non-issue. In our opinion, they had no impact on the results of those games."The Steelers fully support the manner in which Commissioner Goodell handled the situation and the discipline that he levied against those who violated league rules," the statement said."We are confident that the Commissioner has taken appropriate action in his investigation of this matter, and will do so again if new information arises which requires further investigation and or discipline."Rooney's statement came in response to criticism by U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter of the NFL's handling of reports that the Patriots routinely videtaped opposing coach's signals in violation of NFL rules. Specter told the Post-Gazette yesterday that Goodell confirmed to him that four Steelers games were involved, including two AFC championship games.

Please, oh pleas, oh please....let this be the last mention of Spygate in the Steelers 2008 thread.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

You guys are passing over the most interesting tidbit, which is the interest in Jeff Faine. That would be a quality pickup.

I didn't pass over it:

On the other hand Faine would be an upgrade over Mahan (my mother might also be an upgrade over Mahan). Plus it would irk the Brownies fans which is always a good thing.

The question is will the Steelers admit they made a mistake with Mahan and get someone that can plat the position.

Man I hope so. I don't think Tomlin's the kind of person that would stubbornly stick by a player who can't get the job done, but with only a year of seeing him that’s really just a gut opinion. They really need to bring in some guys.

I don't think they'd "eat it' just to save face by keeping Mahan as a starter. If my swiss cheese memory serves, wasn't his contract structured as such that the last 2 years of it paid him more like a backup anyway?(I could be totally off. I thought he only signed a 3 year, front-ended deal). I think it's feasible that they never viewed him as anything other than a safety net for a year anyway. And if he played lights out, then they lucked out and caught lightning in a bottle.I saw the blurb about Faine in the newspaper and raised an eyebrow. I didnt' figure the Saints were really going to let him walk. Guess we'll see.

 

[SteelerMurf]

If Faine became available....Steelers better make a straight line to sign him....having a proven starter/vet a center who has kept Brees' back clean for 2 seasons would immediately solidify the interior line and give the Steelers some wiggle room on draft day.

 

[jetpack]

Steelers resign Kirschke. Link