Heath Evans thinks EVERY one of our draft picks will fail! What!?!

What?

Heath Evans thinks its a mistake to get Jordan because he's reach as a player and a reach for what we need.

Let's deal with just, "reach for what we need".
He claims its a reach for the team because Tom Brady is basically impervious to edge rushers. You cannot deny that...that was his gist. He later talks about how dangerous the Pats' 2 receiving TEs are. Logic dictates if he was right, then there'd be no point in ANY team coming at Brady with edge rushers and instead use guys that can cover TEs.

Do you even understand what you're arguing or are you still under the impression its your job to generate discussion, even if it means arguing for the sake of arguing?

Also, I never said it was blasphemy. I said Evans take isn't backed up by research or logic or facts.

 

Neither do we. For the 1000th time, we think there's a bias/agenda because his reasoning for his opinions are so out there. (<-------read that as many times as needed for you to understand the gripes)

 

His reasoning that Mike Wallace and Dannell Ellerbe are overpaid is "out there"? The belief that Jordan is a liability against the run is "out there"? I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

 

Its not right that you're a troll and a mod.

 

No, he claimed it was a reach because Jordan isn't a complete player, and that edge-rushers aren't as valuable as inside-pressure players against the Patriots. He never said Brady was impervious to anything, thats your own conclusion. He essentially said the resources could be better allocated elsewhere. If one were to look at the numbers, I would guess that the numbers support his claim that Brady is more immune to inside pressure than outside pressure.

And guys that can "cover TEs" don't really exist, and shouldn't really be something you invest a lot of resources in. You've pretty much taken the argument about 2 TE formations and extrapolated it into the necessity for a player that can cover TEs. If you think you're going to see Jordan in coverage against TEs regularly, you're off base IMO. The rules pretty much dictate that receivers in the middle of the field have free-reign. Trying to cover them is like trying to cover Calvin Johnson. Its not going to work. There are better coverage players than Dion Jordan that have failed in covering TEs in the league.

The most important thing Evans cited was how successful NE is running the ball in short-yardage. Thats really the key to all of is. IMO if you want to beat NE, you need to be able to stop them from running with your nickel defense.

 

What exactly do you disagree with? Care to actually make your point, instead of attempting to insult me?

 

Exactly, his approach to this offseason, was ___________"

Like to see how folks on Evans side fill in that blank, and see if it matches up with his take from this interview..regardless of how you feel I would think even the harshest critics of Ireland would have respect for the offseason..Obviously Evans didnt bother to find anything positive...hmmmm

 

Whatever. I've explained my stance quite well actually. I had a post that broke down everything said. You quoted from it. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm saying exactly how I feel. I honestly and truly think you're purposely trolling.

He clarified what he meant by Jordan being a reach. When he clarified it, he said it was because of his size but then launched into a long spiel about how Jordan being a DE won't frustrate Brady because edge rushers don't frustrate Brady. He said we didn't get better with the pick. He never disputes Jordan's ability to rush the passer.

So what we have is this guy saying that Jordan is a bad player, because even though he can rush the passer, rushing from the edge will have no effect on Brady, yet it will have such an effect that they'll run it on 3rd down since Jordan is "small". He's contradicting himself and pulling stuff out of his ***.

- He never backed up his dislike of the Ellerbee for Dansby switch in terms of the money, which is another reason i think you're trolling, because you said he said Ellerbee was overpaid.
- His belief that Wallace is overpaid is not out there. This is another reason I truly believe you're trolling, because I've said repeatedly across multiple posts its about the reasons behind his views that are the problem. And him implying Wallace is a poor player because the proof is Steelers wouldn't pay for him what we did, is stupid.

 

He talked down to Ireland, referring to the phrase potential can get you fired, and insinuated that with Jeff's drafting history this is not a good move, insulting him with the monopoly comments were in reference to the past, just Jeff Ireland being Jeff Ireland has past connotations.

None of what he said took into account when Parcells left, and when Philbin became coach, all things that affect the GM's vision..

The guy was about as poorly researched as it gets, fancy football talk to pretend he knew what he was talking about is how I describe his take in that interview, trying to sound smart for the average football fan..dude didn't show a clue as to the inner workings of our team.

 

I was a Dansby fan, not a Burnett one, but Dansby in the time he was here from what I expected fell short, I realized that my suspicions before he came here were correct, he didnt do sh&$ in the offseason to further his game, I thought he had great leadership potential but that seemed to fall short when he showed up at camp at 275.. I really liked Wheeler coming out of Purdue, and I think Ellerbe brings a diffent dynamic that we didnt currently have..when your 7and 9 three strait season you gotta be aggressive, staying status quo is a topic for another thread.

 

dion Jordan does both, what?, I thought because he only ways 242, or excuse me 243lbs he's a reach at 3..

 

No. It wasn't. For that I apologize.

 

Which is all fair.

My point is and was, someone can question the moves all they want, but make the reasoning behind the questions make sense. Calling Dansby a play maker doesn't make sense. Evans isn't crazy for questioning the move or even thinking the moves were bad, its for the reasons he gave that makes him crazy.

 

I realize you probably have me on ignore, but I respect that you apologized.

 

if he demonstrated an ability to have a more researched opinion and say so, we wouldn't be having this discussion, he didnt, he stated because of the prospects weight he was a reach, that's it..that's a problem when other folks come and tell us were stupid for not thinking what he might of been thinking.

 

Did he explain to you why the swap was a bad move?, or did he simply say Dansby is a vet and a playmaker and he shouldn't of been let go?

Where is the research and detail??

The guy has such a bias he was trying to fit 20 different points in a 10 min interview..

 

No, he never said Jordan was a bad player. He said Jordan was an incomplete player. He believes Jordan's skillset isn't going to be very effective against NE. NE runs because the defense declares it so, not because of tendencies of defensive ends. There is no contradiction here. If you're in nickel formation, and NE has 2 TEs on the field, theyre going to run whether you have Dion Jordan or Jared Odrick on the field.

He never implied Wallace was a poor player. He actually stated that he thinks he's a better player than Santonio Holmes. Evan's opinion here is clear. Pittsburgh did not feel he was worth as much money as Miami. Pittsburgh has more information on Wallace, and thus their opinion is more valuable than anyone else's, including Miami's.

 

Potential can get you fired, and this particular case, its what Miami has the most of. I didn't see any type of talking down. The monopoly money comment wasn't a reference to the past, it was a reference to what has transpired this offseason. When you give out money to FAs like Miami did, you run a lot of risk. Thats what history has proven many times over. Certainly thats not to say those risks will come to bear, but the risks are there are they're real.

 

I would say Evans had more attention to detail than 99% of NFL analysts I've heard discuss Miami this offseason.

 

Can someone tell me what the alternative was to spending in Free Agency with our cap situation at the beginning of the year?

 

He certainly implied it. that's why he said he was reach because of team needs AND because of his ability. He thinks all he can do is rush the passer and even at that, it won't matter because it won't effect Brady. He says he's too small and won't effective on "real football plays". So no, Stringer, he didn't exactly say he was a bad player, but come the hell on. That is not praise, that is not an endorsement. That is not saying the player is good.

Yes he absolutely implied Wallace was a bad player. He said Wallace was over rated and not clutch and took plays off. He implied there were serious problems between him and the Steelers. He said he was more dynamic (I believe that was the word he used or something similar) than Holmes but it was in reference to implying he was a cancer like Holmes was but to a lesser degree. And you and him still just refuse to accept that Pitt offered him a lot of money to stay.

 

Building through the draft/giving money to guys already on the team, that you have familiarity with.

 

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" I guess.

 

When someone says thats just Jeff Ireland being Jeff Ireland spending Monopoly money, that is absolutely implying he's spent like crazy in the past.

 

Would that have covered our cap floor? And wouldn't we have just been ridiculed for overpaying for the guys already on our roster? Just seems like a double edged sword to me. If we gave Anthony Fasano Jared Cook money, that little parade outside Jeff Ireland's office last year would have looked like a block party. Would you guys have been cool with that, reupping the guys we've already had with increased contracts to cover that gap. Basically Jake, Sean, and Fasano would have had to get substantial raises right?

 

Believing that Jordan can only rush the passer shouldn't be all that controversial.

He straight up said that Mike Wallace has more ability than Holmes. He also said that he wasn't a cancer like Holmes. They were two separate declarations.

And Pitt absolutely did not offer him as much money as Miami. They did not think he was worth what Miami feels he is worth. Thats the entire lynchpin behind this.

 

No. You give the money to guys like Pouncey and Rashad Jones. Maybe throw in a Philip Wheeler signing. There were plenty of ways to get the floor without signing Mike Wallace et al.

 

While this is true, is it true because they offered him as much as they could in regards to their salary cap or because they didn't think he was worth it under any circumstances? It was much easier for Miami to pay him extra than it was for the Steelers to do so.

 

If they didn't have enough cap space, that is ultimately their own choosing.

 

So basically if I'm following: The Wheeler contract would have replaced the Burnett Contract. Dansby would have stayed on. Reshad and Pouncey would have split the Jake Long contract? Sean Smith would be let go with Grimes brought on board. We'd still have the money from Reggie and Fasano. We'd probably still have to sign somebody. Wouldn't have money for Wallace I wouldn't think. Don't know how much of an upgrade all of that would be, but I guess it would get us to the floor.

 

Not every club can have a Jeff Ireland.

 

I think most people would agree that Ireland has a reputation for being cheap, frugal how ever you want to spin it. Yet in the interview Evans makes the comment that playing with monopoly money is just Ireland being Ireland as if its his typical MO. Its that type of hyperbole that has everyone's dander up.

Just like with Jordan, its not that he questions whether he is a complete player or not (you can intelligently debate that issue), its that he chants his height and size as if no player with those metrics as ever been good against the run. Then he totally dismisses the whole concept of an edge rusher with the argument that not even 18 sacks would justify the pick and Brady isn't even bothered by edge rushers.

 

not to mention what difference does it make if we spent the money, our cap situation was such that we COULD and we out spent Pitt for him. Evans said he had talked to people in Pit and they did not want him yet Coach Tomlin and Big Ben both said that he was a legit talent and would miss him. if Evans ONLY concern was the amount of money then he really has nothing to debate there. but he didn't. if you follow the interviews with him he flat out said he is not a good player and will not not help a developing Tannehill. his arguments were not from intelligent research in my opinion they were emotionally charged and he used crap to back himself. he even avoided responding to the question "then what would you do as GM?". flat out avoided it.

 

Pittsburgh and Miami are in two different situations. Miami doesn't have Pittsburgh's recievers and Pittsburgh doesn't have Miami's cap space. It's a really poor value comparision. http://overthecap.com/nfl-cap-space.php?Year=2013 Has Pittsburgh at $500k in cap room. Keeping Wallace doesn't seem like it was really an option, yet they still tried.

 

His approach this offseason generated a lot of turnover. It was predictable, but there is an inherent risk. To be honest, I didn't think this offseason was Ireland's best work, but it was still decent and should help build off what he's done in the past.

 

You might be under the impression that the salary floor is a lot more pressing than it really is. It's all a bit vague still but it's my understanding that the time frame on the salary floor has been lengthened to be a larger length of time, and that the floor itself is about 90% of the cap, which is fairly manageable. Cap "space" can be rolled forward from one year to the next easily now, as well.

That said, I have no problem with spending money. They were in a position of having to spend some money. I think it could've been done in a little less risky manner with a little bit more diversification.

 

They don't have Miami's cap space because they chose to use it on players other than Wallace. If they wanted to keep him, they certainly could have done so. They could have not re-signed Antonio Brown, and let Polamalu go, and thats Mike Wallace plus a little extra. I'm not sure I buy that PITs receivers are prohibitive either. I'm a fan of Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders, but they aren't good enough that you let Mike Wallace walk simply because you don't feel you'll be losing much.

 

They had a number they didn't want to go above and when he resisted that number, they folded up their tents, left the negotiating table and gave the bulk of that money to Antonio Brown. They had already seemed reluctant about giving Wallace an extension. They certainly didn't let the negotiations drag on. They made a final offer. That offer is rumored to be $50 million over 5 years but we have no idea how it was structured. Could've looked more like a 3 year, $27 million deal the way it was structured, for all we know. When he rejected the offer they gave a $42 million deal to Antonio Brown immediately. Like within a day, if I recall.

 

You're not accounting for the fact that the Antonio Brown contract happened as a direct result of failed negotiations with Mike Wallace.