quoting 7+83=7:

---

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.

---

I'm don't hate Colbert and Co.

Just like I don't hate Bruce Arians or Mitch Berger last season.

What I am doing is calling a spade a spade.  Colbert is not the infallable, perfect GM some here make him out to be.  He is average at best.  And succeeds on the Roethlisberger pick and the fact he has ownership that strongly believes in stability.

I have long argued the ''good-old-boy'' network of GM's in the league that get constantly recycled is bad in general.  That 21st century GM's should not be glorified scouts (which is what Colbert really is - he's a good scout).  That GM's should have a more rounded managment/scout/academic record.

I would NOT rehash some old scout that has been in the league for decades as our Steelers GM.

Just as young blood sometimes rejuvinates a franchise as a coach, I'm not here to argue some old fuddy-duddy GM from another franchise is any better or worse than Colbert.

In my opinion GM work throughout the league is terrible.  That turnover and owner meddling is rampant.  Most are just scouts that kissed up to the right person.

Colbert just happens to be in a great situation which overly inflates his abililty, just like TSS argues Larry Foote's ability was inflated by the overall Steelers team around him.  In my opinion it is no different.  TSS doesn't hate Larry Foote.  Just like he sees Foote is the way I see Colbert.

quoting deljzc:

---

quoting 7+83=7:

---

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.

---

I'm don't hate Colbert and Co.

Just like I don't hate Bruce Arians or Mitch Berger last season.

What I am doing is calling a spade a spade.  Colbert is not the infallable, perfect GM some here make him out to be.  He is average at best.  And succeeds on the Roethlisberger pick and the fact he has ownership that strongly believes in stability.

I have long argued the ''good-old-boy'' network of GM's in the league that get constantly recycled is bad in general.  That 21st century GM's should not be glorified scouts (which is what Colbert really is - he's a good scout).  That GM's should have a more rounded managment/scout/academic record.

I would NOT rehash some old scout that has been in the league for decades as our Steelers GM.

Just as young blood sometimes rejuvinates a franchise as a coach, I'm not here to argue some old fuddy-duddy GM from another franchise is any better or worse than Colbert.

In my opinion GM work throughout the league is terrible.  That turnover and owner meddling is rampant.  Most are just scouts that kissed up to the right person.

Colbert just happens to be in a great situation which overly inflates his abililty, just like TSS argues Larry Foote's ability was inflated by the overall Steelers team around him.  In my opinion it is no different.  TSS doesn't hate Larry Foote.  Just like he sees Foote is the way I see Colbert.

---

        OK hate was a strong choice of words...but 'constantly negative towards' is fair. I see your points and welcome your opinion....your knowledge of the cap and draft is much stronger than mine. But rather it be old or young I feel Tomlin and Colbert are working together ....BETTER THAN MOST...that's all. Is there someone better?.....sure probably...are there worse.....MANY!!

Bottom line is this:

Right now, how many teams would make this trade:

4th and 6th round pick for a punter and the teams 4th round pick.

glad im staying out of this one...

Agree to disagree and move on.  This value of the punter nonsense is played out.  He is on our team and he is good at what he does, regardless of how we got him.  Let's be glad we have him and not Mitch Berger.

quoting deljzc:

---

All draft picks are are chances.  We choose a punter over two chances.  TSS is arguing he already knows what those chances would have yielded (bad players) and I say he's full of it and doesn't know for sure how any other prospect we had drafted would have turned out.

---

A common theme in all of your lengthy speeches in this thread is that you of course refuse to let the facts get in the way of your argument, which is understandable since there actually are no facts to back up the lame opinion that drafting Sepulveda in round 4 in 2007 was a bad, poor or costly move.

First of all, let's be clear and honest that a 6th round pick in the 2007 NFL draft was not a 'resource' as you continue to claim. Nor was it a 'lottery ticket.'  The 2007 draft featured among the weakest, thinnest and most mediocre draft classes of the past 30+ years -- a fact very well known at the time by the Steelers highly astute front office.  Plenty of guys who went in rounds 3 and 4 of that draft would be 6th or 7th round picks in a typically strong draft year; and most of the guys who were draftted in rounds 5, 6 and 7 in 2007 would not be drafted at all in most years.

Indeed, 2007 was the quintessential year to 'take flyers' on players after the first 55-60 players were off the board.  It was quite simply just a very, very poor group of draft eligible players that year.  The Steelers were armed with that fact before they made the Sepulveda trade, and frankly it quite clearly fueled their proactive willingness to make the deal. There is no question that the Steelers had the pre-draft intention of selecting a punter in that draft; they obviously liked 2 such players; they had 9 draft picks at their disposal; and as noted it was an extremely weak draft crop after round 2.  Giving up nothing but a mid-6th round pick in one of the weakest drafts in decades in order to secure a player you rightly envisioned as a solid 12-year starter was, inarguably, a fantasticly smart move, and one that cost the Steelers nothing.  Most likely, if GB rebuffed the trade offer, the Steelers would have gotten Sepulveda 7 picks later, with their own 4th round pick.  But wisely, the Steelers went with the riskless approach and moved up those 7 spots to make sure, and the only cost was a near-worthless 6th round pick.  So please stop spreading the misinformation that the Steelers blew two draft picks on a punter.  They did not.

Furthermore, you attempt to gloss over the fact that the Steelers essentially got Sepulveda for nothing, by making the disingenious claim that maybe one of the mediocre players drafted in round 6 that year might have overcome his blatant mediocrity and become a standout NFL player if only the Steelers had drafted him instead of some other team. Please point out which of the players drafted in round 6 that year (see list earlier in thread) was a candidate to rise above his limited skills and be a meaningful player to the Steelers roster.  Good luck with that.

And as a matter of fact, one could view Darnell Stapelton as the Steelers 6th round pick that year.  He was their undrafted free agent find that year (and arguably, Stapleton has turned out to be the 2nd best undrafted free agent from 2007, after Saints RB Pierre Thomas).

So here you are continuing to complain about trading a virtually worthless 6th round pick in order to get Sepulveda, despite the fact that Colbert and the Steelers front office worked their magic and came out of that largely pathetic 2007 draft class with 5 starting NFL players (Timmons, Woodley, Sepulveda, Gay, McBean and Stapelton) as well as a serviceable backup (Spaeth).  Your assertion that instead of drafting Sepulveda in round 4, perhaps they should have drafted a journeyman-type OL in round 4, and a kicker in round 6, is a laughably weak alternative scenario.

Now it is true that, in the abstract, the notion of using a 4th round pick on a punter is a bit preposterous.  However, stubbornly adhereing to hard and fast rules such as 'I won't ever draft a punter in round 4, no matter what,' is a recipe for failure.  The Steelers properly evaluated that draft as among the weakest in decades, and reacted accordingly on the fly, and the fact is, that 2007 effort was an absolutely superb job by Colbert and Co. from top to bottom.

quoting TheStallworthSwann:

---

 There is no question that the Steelers had the pre-draft intention of selecting a punter in that draft; they obviously liked 2 such players; they had 9 draft picks at their disposal; and as noted it was an extremely weak draft crop after round 2.  Giving up nothing but a mid-6th round pick in one of the weakest drafts in decades in order to secure a player you rightly envisioned as a solid 12-year starter was, inarguably, a fantasticly smart move,

---

Funny, you say in this post that trading a sixth to move up 7 spots in the 4th to draft a punter was an 'inarguably, a fantastically smart move' yet in another thread you posted this.....

 

  Just like many, many dozens of mediocre punters could have taken Berger's position last season -- nothing would have changed for the team or its results, because players like  Berger don't make a difference; they're more or less just warm bodies.  

 

 

For the record...if I found a punter that could put the other team on their own 1yard line every punt...from anywhere on the field.....including my own 1........well I would take him in the first round and be happy I did.

 

 

HACK

 

quoting GotSix!:

---

Funny, you say in this post that trading a sixth to move up 7 spots in the 4th to draft a punter was an 'inarguably, a fantastically smart move' yet in another thread you posted this.....

  Just like many, many dozens of mediocre punters could have taken Berger's position last season -- nothing would have changed for the team or its results, because players like  Berger don't make a difference; they're more or less just warm bodies.  

---

Just curious, but why is any of that funny?  Both statements are accurate and factual.  The fact that the Steelers front office made a spendid, sensible trade in 2007 in order to draft Sepulveda does not change the fact that the Steelers front office also assembled a talented enough squad in 2008 to win it all despite having to bring in the worst punter in the league as an emergency replacement.

What should the Steelers front office do, let up on the rest of the NFL when it comes to talent accumulation just because they have the best roster?  Fortunately, they don't think that way, which is why the squad usually has a seemingly endless stream of talent waiting in the wings when standout veterans get injured or leave in contract hissy fits.

During the 2007 draft, should Colbert have said, 'Well this isn't looking too fair, I've assembled a great team with good depth and now I have drafted great players in the first two rounds in Timmons and Woodley, so even though making a smart move for a good longterm solution at punter is available for the taking, maybe I should take a backup OL or some roster fodder instead here in round 4, just to be fair to the rest of the league.'  No, the philosophy is pour it on, and keep bringing in talent and reinnforcements, so that when a starter gets injured and you have to bring in a clown like Mitch Berger, there is ample ammunition to easily compensate.

quoting TheStallworthSwann:

---

quoting GotSix!:

---

Funny, you say in this post that trading a sixth to move up 7 spots in the 4th to draft a punter was an 'inarguably, a fantastically smart move' yet in another thread you posted this.....

  Just like many, many dozens of mediocre punters could have taken Berger's position last season -- nothing would have changed for the team or its results, because players like  Berger don't make a difference; they're more or less just warm bodies.  

---

Just curious, but why is any of that funny?  Both statements are accurate and factual.  The fact that the Steelers front office made a spendid, sensible trade in 2007 in order to draft Sepulveda does not change the fact that the Steelers front office also assembled a talented enough squad in 2008 to win it all despite having to bring in the worst punter in the league as an emergency replacement.

What should the Steelers front office do, let up on the rest of the NFL when it comes to talent accumulation just because they have the best roster?  Fortunately, they don't think that way, which is why the squad usually has a seemingly endless stream of talent waiting in the wings when standout veterans get injured or leave in contract hissy fits.

During the 2007 draft, should Colbert have said, 'Well this isn't looking too fair, I've assembled a great team with good depth and now I have drafted great players in the first two rounds in Timmons and Woodley, so even though making a smart move for a good longterm solution at punter is available for the taking, maybe I should take a backup OL or some roster fodder instead here in round 4, just to be fair to the rest of the league.'  No, the philosophy is pour it on, and keep bringing in talent and reinnforcements, so that when a starter gets injured and you have to bring in a clown like Mitch Berger, there is ample ammunition to easily compensate.

---

lol...you dont see the contradiction there? You kill me TSS, you just keep spouting your nonsense.Maybe we shouldve kept our 6th and took our chances waiting 7 spots for a  punter.