QUOTE: “Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." -- John Wooden
On Tuesday,the Steelers signed offensive tackle Max Starks to a long-term deal, allowing them to gain some cap flexibility with a four-year extension. Starks got $26 million -- are you kidding me? What a country we live in. This is what makes persistence for offensive linemen a great virtue. Just start some games and there’s a very good chance you’ll receive a huge deal.
APMax Starks
Now, I don’t have anything against Max Starks or any of the Steelers’ offensive linemen, but their little group last year destroyed a theory I had believed for most of my NFL career. I have tremendous respect for their team, their coaching staff and their whole organization. They were the best team in the NFL in 2008 and deserved to win the Super Bowl. I say that as a backdrop to this column. It’s just that I have questions about their offensive line in terms of talent level.
The theory or principles are very simple: Offensive and defensive lines matter the most. Teams that make the final four in the NFL, in essence the conference championship games, must have at least seven of the 10 offensive and defensive linemen (I count a fifth defensive lineman as a starter, most likely a nickel rusher) graded in the top 15 at their positions. The Steelers had no offensive lineman make that mark, yet they won the whole thing. Does this kill my theory? Does this make me head back to the drawing board? Alternatively, does this mean all my evaluations of the Steelers linemen are wrong?
In my mind, to build an NFL team to win a Super Bowl, or to build a successful business, the same steps are required. Study the organizations that are successful over the long term. Study what they do, how they work, how they maintain excellence. Remember, according to Peter Drucker, the business management guru, “being an entrepreneur is not coming up with a new idea, but rather taking an existing idea and making it better.” When you’re running an NFL team, you must have principles because you are much like a veterinarian. The patient doesn’t speak, so to determine what’s wrong, you must rely on principles and theories that have been tested over time.
Those theories serve as the blueprint to building a team. Therefore, I would place all my resources into building the best offensive and defensive lines in football. Before covering the lines, I would do whatever it took to secure a long-term solution to the quarterback problem, pay any price and bear any burden to make sure that position was secure. Once the quarterback position was covered, all my attention would be directed to the lines.
Bucs quarterback Josh Freeman
Rebuilding the lines requires a 24-month approach to player procurement. You must start once the season ends by asking one fundamental question: Who will be the back-up line in the first preseason game? From left to right tackle, each position must be covered with a player who can function in a professional game with a chance to develop into a potential starter. You cannot expect a bunch of college free-agent offensive linemen to play in a professional game. One breakdown in the line causes entire offense to break down. For example, the Tampa Bay Bucs must have a very good back-up line if they want to maximize the game repetitions for QB Josh Freeman. If Freeman gets in the game behind a crappy line, he will be running for his life, not learning how to play quarterback.
At the current training camp, there must be a depth chart board that will highlight the players under contract for the following season. This board will focus on the question, “Which players will be the back-up offensive and defensive lineman for the next year’s camp?” Then, as the preseason and regular season start, you search for players to fill those needs you might have.
Those are my principles and my plan to adhere to them. The Steelers are NFL champions, but they don’t have an offensive line that resembles a champion. They have defensive linemen who are clearly a cut above most teams in the NFL, but when you look at their offensive line, who do you feel is a blue-chip player? (I expect Steelers fans to rip me for being too hard on their line, but when you rank 29th in the league in sacks allowed, with the toughest quarterback in the NFL to tackle, something is wrong. So be a little objective here.)
I’ve looked very carefully at the Steelers’ offensive line and really don’t feel that I missed on my evaluations. So how did they win it all -- with Max Starks at left tackle no less? They did it because the beauty of the NFL is that there are many ways to win. Just because a team doesn’t do it the way I would doesn’t discredit its accomplishments. The Steelers managed their line well; they knew what they could and could not do, then worked around their problems.
My favorite scene from the movie “Apollo 13” is when all the scientists are in a room around a very long table, and a man walks in with a bunch of material and spreads it on the desk. He then says, “We must make this material into this design that’s on the blackboard.” Not one scientist complains but rather finds a solution to the problems. That, to me, is what the Steelers did -- they found a solution. Meanwhile, I did all the complaining.
Congratulations to Starks. I’m happy for his success on the field that resulted in a new deal. It won’t change my evaluation of his talents, nor my theories on how to build a team, but it has caused me to give this great thought.
As Jack Nicholson once said, “I want to know -- you understand? I like knowing the other side. That, to me, is the elixir of life.”
As a Steelers fan, I want to rip you, but I really can't. The o-line was not good enough last year, and the Steelers are bringing back the same crew. I hope they get better playing 1 more year together.
But, I can't really blame the Steelers because what else were they going to do? The franchise does not pay free agents so they couldn't get a talent upgrade through free agency. O-lineman were popular picks in the draft and the best ones were gone by the time Steelers picked. At least they picked up depth in the D-line with Hood.
The Steelers seem content to pay less money to known quantities than gamble on the unknown or pay for the talent.
Good article Mike. It seems like you skipped over what could have been the most interesting point. How did the Steelers win despite their poor offensive line. You mentioned what they could and could not do well. What couldn't they do well? How can this be a lesson to other teams?
Great article, ML. I agree with you that the O-line and D-lines are the backbone of the team and should be priorities. You KNOW I'm not a Steelers fan, and it hurts me physically to pay them even a single compliment.... but you have to hand it to them. They got it done. They made the most out of "the less" - not the LEAST - because they didn't have the WORST O-line last year...
As far as Starks goes - no, he's not the best - but maybe the Steelers see an upside to him that we are not privy to. Maybe his work ethic is awesome. Maybe his attitude uplifts the locker room. His performance was "average", but when you win the Super Bowl you get brownie points... so we can upgrade him to "slightly above average". Just like the Albert Haynesworth deal... do you really think they are going to see all that money? No.
I think the Steelers just bought some time until they can find a better LT. I'm not knocking Starks too badly. He's a good player.... but like I've said before... two or three rookies/backups for the Titans really roughed up the Steelers O-Line last year. And it wasn't just the Titans. Almost every Steelers game I watched, I saw the O-Line collapse a few times at critical moments.
I take into account, though, that Roethlisberger holds onto the ball way too long - thus, when he gets sacked, the O-line is going to get blamed more than it should. To make Max Starks worth that money, Big Ben is going to have to make his reads faster and make his decisions faster. Also - I would have to watch more closely, but it's possible that Starks was trying to cover for another linemember's deficiencies. I don't know who the LG is.... but if your buddy can't hold up their end of the deal, then you try to make up for his slack... then your own performance of your own responsibilities is going to decline.
Just sayin'. And I hate the Steelers...but I respect them. Love Mike Tomlin, too.
Starks made the team better, maybe not in comparison to the other NFL players at his position for other teams, but for the ones on his own team, he was an upgrade. Nothing wrong with that, it's a team sport and they had great depth at TE and enough back ability to help balance protection issues with the run game, play action, and quicks.
Helps to have three veteran passers as well.
The defensive coordinator there is worth his weight in gold steel.
I liked Starks coming out of Florida but he is better suited for RT than LT. To his credit I think he does a good job of wearing down smaller rushers with his massive frame. I think he is a similar player to Fred Miller....
The scary thing is if Starks gets dinged they don't have much depth behind him....
AND THATS WHY BEN ROETHLISBERGER IS A FRANCHISE QB!!!!!!!
Too many people confuse the outcome of a decision with the quality of that decision. A good decision does not always result in a good outcome and a good outcome is not always the result of a good decision. A good decision is one that maximizes the chances that the outcome will be favorable. I agree with the basic notion that building a team from the lines out is a decision that is most likely to result in a winning team. The fact that a team with a poor offensive line won the Super Bowl does not challenge that statement in any way. It means that most likely should never be confused with certainty.
I see similarities between the '08 Steelers and '09 Lakers: both were good teams that emerged alive from a battle between flawed contenders. I really don't think the Steelers would have beaten the Titans on the road, but Chris Johnson got hurt and two red-zone fumbles later the Ravens knocked them out. The Roethlisberger-led Steelers have shown no ability to handle the Brady-led Patriots but Brady's injury took New England out of contention; similarly, Kevin Garnett's injury took the Celtics (who have been kryptonite to the Lakers these past 2 years) out of the running.
I don't think there's much of a need to ruminate on why the O-line didn't cost the Steelers more at some point. Like the Colts' defense the year they won the title, a mediocre unit performed well in the right spots and never killed the team.
Wow. This was probably the best, most intelligent series of comments following a very good article I've ever seen on the Internet. Especially for a sports article, where you are usually inundated with proclamations of who sucks and who doesn't.
Nice work, Everyone!
Kevmo
Everyone complains the Big Ben holds on to the ball too long. Too long for what? You mean that if he held on to it for less time they might have won the Super Bowl? Really, holding on to it longer than other quarterback does result in more sacks but it also results in more critical completions. I would not trade him for any other quarterback in the NFL. None.
Everyone complains the Big Ben holds on to the ball too long. Too long for what? You mean that if he held on to it for less time they might have won the Super Bowl? Really, holding on to it longer than other quarterback does result in more sacks but it also results in more critical completions. I would not trade him for any other quarterback in the NFL. None.
Good article. I think the Steelers just bought some time until they can find a better LT. I'm not knocking Starks too badly. He's a good player.... but like I've said before... two or three rookies/backups for the Titans really roughed up the Steelers O-Line last year. And it wasn't just the Titans. Almost every Steelers game I watched, I saw the O-Line collapse a few times at critical moments. They did lose four games, but they were a dominant defense, with maybe four hall-of-famers in their prime. They were dominant in the playoffs. They were the better team.
I think Tomlin would agree with you about the o-line. But he didn't let anyone use that as an excuse. "The level of expectation will not change." He's a quote machine on leadership. Here's a list of highlights:
http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2009/6/3/895575/tomlinism-tournament-first-round
The winner: "Every Day I Walk Past Five Lombardi Trophies, Not Five Rushing Titles. Willie's Comments Can be Construed as Selfish, Which He is Not."
I agree with Dave above. Sure, by all measurements, Starks would be at the bottom of any ranking of left tackles. But what else was Pittsburgh to do? They're clearly loaded for more championship runs right now and premier left tackles simply don't make it to free agency and you're not looking at top prospects in the draft picking as late as the Steelers do. Would you rather have Starks for 2009 or Eben Britton? In this situation I would definitely take Starks.
love your philosophy Mike, but we differ in a few areas...I would build the OL before getting my QB (unless his grade was too high to pass on), b/c let's face it, a QB without a good OL will get destroyed...what the Colts did with Manning is an ideal situation, the guy had a Pro Bowl LT, solid OL, Pro Bowl RB in Faulk (and more since) and another Pro Bowler at WR in Harrison in the first game he started, plus he's had 1 OC since his rookie year (until this year)...look at the opposite end in SF where Alex Smith was taken #1, had a poor OL, his RB was Kevan Barlow, his top WR was Lloyd and he's had 5 different OC's in 5 years...this spells a disaster...Manning has looked pretty poor when he lost all of his 1st rounders around him a year or so ago b/c of injuries...
It's a tribute to the Steelers' QB and receiving corps (including TE Heath Miller) that they were able to generate enough offense to win big games by coming alive at crucial points. Big Ben is the real deal. He will always be underappreciated by people who think a rack of statistics is the best indicator of a top-flight QB, but his unique gifts enable him to prosper in a situation that would have P. Manning throwing his O-line under the bus every week and T. Brady with his own winter home in a Boston hospital. Given the Steeler's O-line, I wouldn't trade Ben away for anyone in the NFL past or present.
It goes without saying that this only works as long as the D is playing great. It doesn't matter if your offense can only put up 17 points a game if the defense usually keeps the opponent's offense down to 13.
Also, consider that the Steelers won a lot of games with last-minute drives. In the final quarter, the qualitative differences between the Steelers O-line and the opponents' lines and linebacker squads aren't as important as they are earlier in the game. For example, nobody ever accused Steelers left guard Chris Kemoeatu of being the best left guard in the NFL. But, skilled or not, he is still 6'3", 345 lbs. of bad attitude, and you still have to push him out of the way when he doesn't want to be pushed. You can do that for two or three quarters if you're a top-gun defensive end or nosetackle, but four quarters is a lot to ask even of the best.
I think the Steelers are a very good football team, and that Ben Roethlisberger is a legit QB talent, and I want to be clear that what follows is not to take anything away from their success.
I don't buy that Ben makes the offense go in spite of a bad line. I think Ben makes the line look bad because he doesn't read defenses at an elite level. He's a winner with elements to his game (toughness, escapability, determination) that make up for it, but its a weakness that good defensive coordinators can exploit at times too.
Jack, I hate to disagree with you outright. Certainly, there may be some truth to what you say. But only some, not an overwhelming amount. I'm not really competent to judge how well Ben reads defenses. But I have observed that it doesn't take him any longer to hand off the ball to Parker or Moore than any other QB, and the run got stuffed with dismaying frequency last year. Parker is not the best reader of the defense either, but the year before he was on track to be the most productive back in the NFL before his injury.
If both Ben and Willie are having trouble doing what they do, I think that seems to point the finger at the line.
I can even tell you, I think, who the problem is and who it isn't. I've watched LT Starks closely since he went to left tackle, and he has looked pretty solid to my untrained eye -- I just figure, if he keeps the opponent in front of him, he's doing his job. LG Kemoeatu looks good sometimes, bad other times -- inconsistency reigns. I thought C Hartwig was dependable, certainly an upgrade from the year before. RG Stapleton had moments of glory, especially in his run blocking, but he was the least experienced of the bunch and seemed to be the weakest link, overall. But it's close between him and RT Colon, who frankly had the living snot kicked out of him all Super Bowl long -- it was ugly. Things would get bad when Kemoeatu on the left would get confused, but they looked a lot worst on the right side, which was porous as all get out. It got even worse when TE Miller was out.
When I watch Tom Brady or Peyton Manning play in a big game, generally speaking, they have time to mix a martini and read the newspaper before they need to pass the ball. Neither one would prosper as a Steeler QB given their O-line. But it may very well be that Ben would not prosper there either, if he had a coach who forced him to make disciplined and precisely timed throws.
But you have to admit that, for a QB who "doesn't read defenses at an elite level," Ben has done very well for himself, with two Super Bowl rings in his first five pro years, and winning a record number of games in that time.
I'm glad someone has the balls to be a little critical of the Steelers front office and Kevin Colbert. And that is exactly what this article really does. Because the signing of Starks (and his overpayment according to Lombardi) was done because the Steelers had no other OPTIONS at the left tackle position.
For the last 4 seasons, the offensive line was below average. The running game, by most inside the game measurements, was declining. The pass blocking was mediocre to bad depending on how much you blamed Roethlisberger.
And the truth is because Colbert and Co. didn't address this issue 3-4 seasons ago, not the last two. It was decisions like using frivolous picks on Omar Jacobs, two picks on Daniel Sepulveda, Willie Ried (after you drafted Holmes in round 1) that doomed the Steelers line. In all honesty, we just didn't use enough lottery tickets (draft picks) on O-line in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and now we're in a position of desperation and bad choices when it comes to our lines. Choices like using the tag TWICE on an average tackle like Max Starks. And the bad, desperate free agent signing of Mahan in 2007 (because we had no one to replace Hartings).
I have said this many times. The one thing I most want to change about Colbert's decisions over the past 5 seasons, was be more aggressive in the 2007 supplemental draft to get Jared Gaither with a 4th round pick (which turned out we used on Tony Hills in 2008 draft). Gaither has started 20 NFL games already, while we've pretty much indicated by signing Starks that Hills is the next coming of Trai Essex. If we had Gaither, there would be no reason to even have Starks on the roster in 2008 and 2009 at the absurd salary cap values he's counted. And we would have a decent up-and-coming talent rather than a mish-mash of mediocrity.
What's done is done. And the Super Bowl is ours regardless, so any criticism is tough to defend. But Colbert's one weakness is offensive line evaluation (go check out Detroit's track record in the 90's).
| powered by TheSeats.com |
No one knows the future, but one...
Unconventional thinking, plus...
Questions and thoughts about the...
Super Bowl thoughts: Freeney,...
Is Browns GM serious about Tebow?...
Jun 24, 2009
10:52 AM
The Steelers offense was brutal to watch at times last season, and indeed for most of the Super Bowl. But Big Ben. for all his faults, makes the offense serviceable, even behind such a mediocre line, due to his ability to manufacture plays out of the failures of his line. How many times have we seen him dead-to-rights only to watch him bounce off someone or spin away and find a guy at the last second. Sure, sometime his guys get beat and Ben takes the sack. We saw that in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl. But more often than not, as in the last drive of the championship game, Ben wades through the mediocrity in front of him and finds a way to turn it into a positive. It is truly remarkable.