Unfrotunately, the mounds of evidence supporting punters and their lack of worth to teams is much more than just the 'anomoly' of the 2008 Steelers.

Most teams this decade won with bad punters.

Most teams in the Super Bowl era that won didn't have ''top-5'' punters.

This whole decade, those punters that are considered ''top-5'' have done little to help their teams get into the playoffs.

The punter is the cheapest paid position in football except long snapper.

Punters have been drafted least and lower than any other position except long snapper.

There is growing evidence that teams should actually punt fewer times than they actually do.  In fact Tomlin goes for it on 4th more often than many (which makes having a top-5 punter less valuable than with a conservative coach).

Again... there is an argument and a debate.  It all comes down to ''how much''.  This argument has always annoyed me because I'm arguing with both people that think punters are 5% of winning and people that think 4th round draft picks are worthless because of the argument ''look at all the failures we drafted there before''.  There is very little to change either camps mind.

It is obvious to me not only do I value draft picks higher than most, I also value punters less than most.  That combination clearly defines my position on the whole Sepulveda draft selection.  I also think the evolution of the game will further support my case as offenses become stronger and going for it on 4th down becomes more frequent.  And I think the draft will always be the lifeblood of good franchises, not free agency.

I just strongly don't believe I am wrong on either point.

This is the bottom line. The Steelers thought enough of Sepulveda to take a risk. I believe one reason they took that risk was because field position can have huge impact on the game. Not having that extra pick did not hurt the organization. There is a good chance those picks would not last on the team anyway.

quoting BURGH43STEL:

---

This is the bottom line. The Steelers thought enough of Sepulveda to take a risk. I believe one reason they took that risk was because field position can have huge impact on the game. Not having that extra pick did not hurt the organization. There is a good chance those picks would not last on the team anyway.

---

I just don't understand this argument.

Draft selections are lottery picks.  You can find diamonds ANYWHERE.  Hasn't history proven that to everyone?

Those two picks were chances at a diamond, whether you think so or not.  Yes, two positional players could be long gone.  Or maybe, just maybe, one is having a pro bowl season for us at a position we never would have suspected, had major impact on our salary cap, future draft choices and a host of other ''what-ifs'.

We will never know.  What we do know is the maximum positive of those draft picks will be a good punter.  That's it.  I just don't think that's worth all that much considering most ''good'' GM's seem to find good punters without using any draft picks at all.

 

To expand on that last point.

This was a lazy way for our GM to accomplish getting a good punter.  It was the ''easy'' way out because he used resources very few other GM's in the league even bother devoting to that position (for good reason).

If I was GM and found the greatest place kicker in the world, but used the #10 overall pick on him, would it be a good move to everyone here?  What about the #20?  #30?  #40?

There has to be a ''line'' where you start overspending for a good punter.

History has established good punters can be found other ways than the #112 pick in the draft.  Heck, the previous decade (and I can't think of punter since) only FIVE punters were selected that high.  That means 27 other teams filled that spot on their rosters using less resources than the Pittsburgh Steelers.  27 other GM's accomplished something cheaper than Colbert and Co.

How can it possibly be considered a good move in that context?  All you have to do is compare how he solved a problem vs. his peers.

quoting deljzc:

---

quoting BURGH43STEL:

---

This is the bottom line. The Steelers thought enough of Sepulveda to take a risk. I believe one reason they took that risk was because field position can have huge impact on the game. Not having that extra pick did not hurt the organization. There is a good chance those picks would not last on the team anyway.

---

I just don't understand this argument.

Draft selections are lottery picks.  You can find diamonds ANYWHERE.  Hasn't history proven that to everyone?

Those two picks were chances at a diamond, whether you think so or not.  Yes, two positional players could be long gone.  Or maybe, just maybe, one is having a pro bowl season for us at a position we never would have suspected, had major impact on our salary cap, future draft choices and a host of other ''what-ifs'.

We will never know.  What we do know is the maximum positive of those draft picks will be a good punter.  That's it.  I just don't think that's worth all that much considering most ''good'' GM's seem to find good punters without using any draft picks at all.

 

---

It could mean winning the lottery or not. The Steelers choose to try their luck with one less ticket. Time will tell if Sepulveda pays off. In all likely hood, they made the selection based on the draft value chart. It is really not that big a deal.

If you are insinuating that Colbert is not a good GM, you are mistaken. Helping the team have several successful drafts, several playoff appearances, and 2SB wins kinda proves you wrong.

quoting deljzc:

---

To expand on that last point.

This was a lazy way for our GM to accomplish getting a good punter.  It was the ''easy'' way out because he used resources very few other GM's in the league even bother devoting to that position (for good reason).

If I was GM and found the greatest place kicker in the world, but used the #10 overall pick on him, would it be a good move to everyone here?  What about the #20?  #30?  #40?

There has to be a ''line'' where you start overspending for a good punter.

History has established good punters can be found other ways than the #112 pick in the draft.  Heck, the previous decade (and I can't think of punter since) only FIVE punters were selected that high.  That means 27 other teams filled that spot on their rosters using less resources than the Pittsburgh Steelers.  27 other GM's accomplished something cheaper than Colbert and Co.

How can it possibly be considered a good move in that context?  All you have to do is compare how he solved a problem vs. his peers.

---

You are to the point where you have to state the GM was lazy? For some reason, I don't think Colbert would last with the Steelers if that was the case.

Dude, good punters can be found a variety of ways. If it takes the draft to get one so be it. Steelers thought they were getting a really good player in Sepulveda. It is really not that big a deal.

How do you suggest they scout punters for a full year or scour the ranks of the undrafted and still have resources to look for the diamonds you think are there at 4 and 6? Clearly if they are looking at punters then they aren't scouting OL or ILB.

Your logic seems flawed since you put more value on draft picks over punters and then equate draft picks to lottery tickets further driving home the point that just because the player fails doesn't mean it is a wasted attempt. Then you suggest that the FO take a chance looking for a diamond in the rough? Wouldn't this in essence be wasting a valuable draft pick on an unknown quantity hoping that it pans outs? How is that a wise use of limited resources? The odds that the team wasted two picks on quartz is more likely than finding diamonds so how does trading two picks to gain a known quantity over an unknown one not make sense. Im trying to understand your point but it contradicts itself.

Some of you post as though the Steelers are drafting a vacuum.  They are not.  Sure picks are a lottery, but to make the pick work, not only does the player have to be a 'diamond' he has to have more 'carrots' than a player currently on the team in order to make the roster. 

What was more likely?  Getting a sure-thing punter to fill an empty roster spot ( the current guy was finished )  or choosing a LB/OL/DL/DB with limited measurables to take away a roster spot from a decent vet / high round draft pick?

The happier you are with your base squad, the fewer lottery tickets you need to throw at the basic positions, and you can be a little frivolous....

Is Sep a bigger upgrade at P, than a 4th and 6th round pick would be at other positions?  I think so.

Is the P that big of a deal?  Of course not. 

But would I rather have a great punter versus camp fodder?  Sure. 

 

quoting deljzc:

---

To expand on that last point.

This was a lazy way for our GM to accomplish getting a good punter.  It was the ''easy'' way out because he used resources very few other GM's in the league even bother devoting to that position (for good reason).

If I was GM and found the greatest place kicker in the world, but used the #10 overall pick on him, would it be a good move to everyone here?  What about the #20?  #30?  #40?

There has to be a ''line'' where you start overspending for a good punter.

History has established good punters can be found other ways than the #112 pick in the draft.  Heck, the previous decade (and I can't think of punter since) only FIVE punters were selected that high.  That means 27 other teams filled that spot on their rosters using less resources than the Pittsburgh Steelers.  27 other GM's accomplished something cheaper than Colbert and Co.

How can it possibly be considered a good move in that context?  All you have to do is compare how he solved a problem vs. his peers.

---

       Dude we ALL know your hate for Colbert and Co. They have made some mistakes and I admit u know the salary cap situation much better than myself..but please enlighten me with your replacement for Colbert to better serve the Steelers. We live in Raleigh/Cary  with fans from all over the planet and if there is one constant is they would almost all kill for our front office. Please provide your names of replacements.

quoting Steel Gryphon:

---

Some of you post as though the Steelers are drafting a vacuum.  They are not.  Sure picks are a lottery, but to make the pick work, not only does the player have to be a 'diamond' he has to have more 'carrots' than a player currently on the team in order to make the roster. 

What was more likely?  Getting a sure-thing punter to fill an empty roster spot ( the current guy was finished )  or choosing a LB/OL/DL/DB with limited measurables to take away a roster spot from a decent vet / high round draft pick?

The happier you are with your base squad, the fewer lottery tickets you need to throw at the basic positions, and you can be a little frivolous....

Is Sep a bigger upgrade at P, than a 4th and 6th round pick would be at other positions?  I think so.

Is the P that big of a deal?  Of course not. 

But would I rather have a great punter versus camp fodder?  Sure. 

 

---

Yet another post that attacks the value of 4th round picks.

Obviously I don't look at 4th round picks as just 'camp fodder' or I wouldn't be making my argument as strongly as I am.

For you to tell me after our 8-8 season in 2006 that our roster was so perfect that a 4th round pick didn't have any chance of becoming a good roster player is ludicrous.  Heck, the year before, after winning the Super Bowl, we drafted Willie Colon in round 4 and he has starter 50 games for us since.

Again, I'm tired of arguing.

I see no merit in what anyone says that either:

a) Tries to increas the value of Sepulveda to this teams chance of winning and losing or

b) Tries to decrease the value of 4th round draft choices towards the overall well-being of a franchise.

It's just not going to work with me.  Ever.