Fans Of Quentin Groves

[fedderone]

OK, for all the Groves fans, and there are a ton from all these posts swinging on off his johnson like Tarzan, I have a question to pose to you.

If the Stillas select Groves like you wish, being that he would play OLB, he either :

a) Sits behind James Harrison, our MVP.
b) Sits behind Lamarr Woodley, our promising 2nd rounder from last year.
c) Starts over, whether that be next year or eventually, our team MVP James Harrison.
d) Starts over, whether that be next year or eventually, our promising second rounder from last year.

I get the fact that he's a great player and a top 50 player in this year's draft.
But it doesn't make any sense for us to draft him simply for the fact that we'll only employ 2 OLB's at a time and there would be an odd man out at all times between the above mentioned 3 players.
Not very smart strategy for drafting OR from personnel standpoint.

What say you, Stilla Nation fans of Quentin Groves?

[Slaine]

Not sure that I'm a first round fan of Groves but as to drafting him I'm fine with it. It's been shown that LB's take a while to get used to our system and we have no depth behind Harrison who is 30 years old. And the Giants showed everyone what happens when you have depth in your pass rush - even if Groves rotated in on every third series we'd have two fresh guys by the end of the fourth quarter and a tired opposing LT facing two very different types of pass rushers.

By the time SIlverback comes up for a new contract (he signed a four year deal in April 2006) he'll be 32. This is absolutely the time to be drafting a guy and getting him ready to take Harrison's spot the season after next.

Should we be looking at Groves in the 1st round? Maybe, maybe not. A lot depends on who falls where in the 1st but if we could trade down then he'd be perfect early/mid second round value and I'd be really happy to take him there.

[TMC]

Well said Slaine, well said. If the Steelers do not address the OLB position this year, then we have Harrison, Woodley, Arnold Harrison, and is it Fox? Then, they could hit the draft next year and we see a void of solid prospects that fit the mold of a 3-4 OLB. Then, you are forcing a pick....another Alonzo Jackson type deal.

I take the talent when it presents itself. We have no depth at OLB and our current starter has about 2 years left before he is done. It takes, at the very least, 1 year to get acclimated. If the opportunity presents itself, now is when you make the pick.

[BermudaSteel]

I agree w/ Slaine and TMC. It would be nice, HOWEVER, if we could figure out how Foote is going to play in this role...Foote should be Farrior's heir who we'll pair up w/ Timmons---and then there's no one behind them...Woodley doesn't have much behind him either...

[Steeltime]

Cliff Avril later in the draft will serve the same purpose as selecting Groves.

Avril had some good games against top-flight competition. He played against Joe Thomas, Jake Long, Kirk Barton. He was productive in college (194 tackles in college, 12 passes defensed, 13 sacks, 7 FF). He is big enough to go against LT's - something that was clearly not true of Timmons.

He ran a 4.51 on his pro day. He could be there in the 3rd for the Steelers.

That means the Steelers can get a top pass rushing prospect who fills the need for depth at OLB this year, supplies some pass rush while giving Harrison a breather, while getting other top-flight players in the first 2 rounds.

[TMC]

Avril is not far behind Groves in rankings though....meaning he has climbed squarely into the 2nd, maybe the high 2nd.

[fedderone]

I was speaking at the #23 spot specifically, not this "if we light ourselves on fire and do a backflip out of the window and trade down" scenario.
Again, I understand drafting him in the second.
Shouldn't a first rounder be an immediate contributor? ( cough cough Timmons )
I know it doesn't always work that way ( cough Troy ) but that's what you shoot for realistically.

[Slaine]

At #23 - not really, that would be a reach for me. But again, you never know who else is off the board. My guess is that if it's down to Talib, Cason and Groves then it'll be Groves. As Tomlin said in a recent quote - you always take the pass rusher in that situation.

[TMC]

I think stating that a first round draft pick should be an immediate contributor fails to take into account a huge amount of variables. What if you are the Raiders and take a kicker in the first? Well, of course he will start and contribute. Sepulveda was a big contributor for us last year and people bitch we traded up for him. So, does contributing actually mean starting? Polamalu played as a rookie, he just did not start.

Now, What if you are a horrid team? I think your rookie almost has to start because you lack talent a many positions. But what if you are a playoff contender? Last season, the 12 teams that made the playoffs (New England, Indy, San Diego, Tenn, Jax, Pitt, TB. NY Giants, Seattle, Washington, GB, and Dallas) had a combined total of 12 rookies start 8 games or more and four of those teams had 9 rookies rack up those numbers.

So, eight playoff teams saw 3 rookies start. If the caliber of talent on your roster is strong enough, then no, I would not have expectations of a rookie starting. I would also not expect a rookie to start depending on the position he plays. A quarterback is not going to be effective as a rookie. Some WRs struggle as rookies. I do not want a defensive player starting in our defense because they rely too much on everyone knowing and playing their assignments.

Also, the futher you move down in the first round (or any round) of the draft, the more likely it is that you have to wait on this guy to acclimate to the NFL. These guys have to sign deals, worry with living arrangements, get out of their college comfort zone, learn a massive playbook, and then make adjustments to the speed of the game.

So, I never expect a rookie to start/contribute and if I get anything from them, it is a bonus.

[fedderone]

I think stating that a first round draft pick should be an immediate contributor fails to take into account a huge amount of variables. What if you are the Raiders and take a kicker in the first? Well, of course he will start and contribute. Sepulveda was a big contributor for us last year and people bitch we traded up for him. So, does contributing actually mean starting? Polamalu played as a rookie, he just did not start.

Now, What if you are a horrid team? I think your rookie almost has to start because you lack talent a many positions. But what if you are a playoff contender? Last season, the 12 teams that made the playoffs (New England, Indy, San Diego, Tenn, Jax, Pitt, TB. NY Giants, Seattle, Washington, GB, and Dallas) had a combined total of 12 rookies start 8 games or more and four of those teams had 9 rookies rack up those numbers.

So, eight playoff teams saw 3 rookies start. If the caliber of talent on your roster is strong enough, then no, I would not have expectations of a rookie starting. I would also not expect a rookie to start depending on the position he plays. A quarterback is not going to be effective as a rookie. Some WRs struggle as rookies. I do not want a defensive player starting in our defense because they rely too much on everyone knowing and playing their assignments.

Also, the futher you move down in the first round (or any round) of the draft, the more likely it is that you have to wait on this guy to acclimate to the NFL. These guys have to sign deals, worry with living arrangements, get out of their college comfort zone, learn a massive playbook, and then make adjustments to the speed of the game.

So, I never expect a rookie to start/contribute and if I get anything from them, it is a bonus.

Point consented, TMC.
Nice argument.

However, I would feel more comfortable with Groves in the 2nd, rather than the 1st.
Simply for the fact that it would be a rotation for a few years at least, whereas any other position of true need for starters, not depth, could contribute and start sooner than Groves.

I will leave it to the experts, though.

[TMC]

Point consented, TMC.
Nice argument.

However, I would feel more comfortable with Groves in the 2nd, rather than the 1st.
Simply for the fact that it would be a rotation for a few years at least, whereas any other position of true need for starters, not depth, could contribute and start sooner than Groves.

I will leave it to the experts, though.

If I am living right, Chris Williams will fall to us at 23 and Groves/Avril would be there in the 2nd.

IF that happened, I would probably have to excuse myself from the room.

I honestly know I view the draft differently than some others. I do not expect my rookies to contribute in the first year. I will draft the BPA, but the BPA has to be obvious. If there are 2-3 players ranked closely, then I take the guy that helps my team the most and weigh that against the depth of that and other positions in the draft.

But, I also know that others feel first rounders should start and we should always feel needs.

[LetMePlay]

But, I also know that others feel first rounders should start and we should always feel needs.

I may be one of the others but I dont think that 1st rounders need to start. I think they should see significant playing time though. I just dont like drafting players that high that dont press for playing time.

[Stlrs4Life]

Fully agree with TMC. I never expect a rookie to start.

[SteelerFan448]

If I am living right, Chris Williams will fall to us at 23 and Groves/Avril would be there in the 2nd.


I may not even watch the second day of the draft if that's how our first two rounds go. That'd be my ideal draft.

[crimsonsteel]

If I am living right, Chris Williams will fall to us at 23 and Groves/Avril would be there in the 2nd.

IF that happened, I would probably have to excuse myself from the room.



Oh, man that post belongs in Club SN. That's my dream day 1.

[mightyguru]

Oh, man that post belongs in Club SN. That's my dream day 1.

I'd be walking around grinning like a dog for a week.

[fedderone]

If I am living right, Chris Williams will fall to us at 23 and Groves/Avril would be there in the 2nd.


Yeah, I think ALL of us males in Steeler Nation would "repaint the walls" if the draft fell that way.

It's fun to dream I guess.

[Forearm Shiver]

LT and a pass rusher, love the idea.

[stevew]

How about when a rookie is ready to start from pretty much the get-go, but you still get to watch Ced Wilson start for around 2/3 of the season. Gotta love the way Cowher played rookies :(

[Steeltime]

Avril is not far behind Groves in rankings though....meaning he has climbed squarely into the 2nd, maybe the high 2nd.

Good point. He is getting attention and might necessitate a second round selection.

Too bad for the Steelers. In round 3, Avril is a great pick, and would give the Steelers round 1 and 2 selections for OL, DL, and/or CB.

And P.S. - in terms of getting an OLB to rush the passer, the Steelers have had a lot of success with converted DE's (J. Porter, K. Greene, J. Gildon, L. Woodley). I suspect that is because the converted DE's are used to going up against OT's to get to the passer, rather than LB'ers, who are used to coming on a blitz, a lot of time with a free lane to the passer.

DE's who produced in college and have the speed to cover the outside and provide some pass coverage - guys like Groves and Avril - seem like they are made for the 3-4 OLB position.

[SteelPastor]

If we ended up taking Groves... I agree it will take some time for him to get in the lineup. However, if he DID push hard enough to force his way on the field... I am certain Harrison could play inside.

[Slaine]

I may be one of the others but I dont think that 1st rounders need to start. I think they should see significant playing time though. I just dont like drafting players that high that dont press for playing time.

I agree but then you look at New England with Merriweather last year and they just didn't really have the holes for that guy (particularly picking at #30 or wherever they were) to step in to.

We have veterans at every position - not all of them at a standard that you'd like to have but serviceable players. Bearing in mind the likely options for us in the 1st I think it's pretty unlikely that we'll see any great production this year barring injuries.

I'd love to think that we can get a guy that shows enough to start from day one for us but I only see that happening on the OL/DL. Everywhere else on the D takes too long to learn (except maybe the nickel position) and the other spots on the O look too solid except maybe the #3 WR position.

[Coryea]

I have no problem with Groves if the top OT's are gone. Groves is pretty much the same size as Porter who played DE in College, it would give Groves a season or two learn behind Harrison, and be a situational pass rusher. That would give us two very good pass rushing OLB's for years to come, and I think Groves would be athletic enough to drop into coverage, play the run, etc and everything else we ask our ROLB to do.

[domthebomb228]

I agree we need another pass rusher - If Harrison or Woodley go down, we have Arnold Harrison and Keyaron Fox. That's just not doing it for me.

[CLUTCH]

We must remember what makes a great 3-4 OLB is winning majority of the one on one battles or commanding a double team which cuts down on our defense having to blitz all the time to create pressure which exposes our non lock down DB's.........

[88espy07]

i would love to see the steelers pick up groves in the first. I think the top four or five OT will be gone, it seems like every other team could pick a OL before us and I think RB Stewart is gone by now, who we'd take before Groves. Plus, he won't make to us in the second round. I wish we could trade down, but doubt it. Then if we get him, he can come in for harrison after this year and harrison can move to old man farriors spot, unless timmons really steps up then he can. With some luck our LBs can start to look like in the 90s when there was Lloyd, Brown, Kirkland, and Greene.

[markymarc]

Like Tom said if the top OTs are gone then I would be really happy if we picked up Groves. IMO he will be a very good LB especially rushing the QB and provide more youth at the LB spot. At least we are only 1 day away from the draft finally being here.

[esteban13]

we need another linebacker. Harrison and Farrior are both past 30, Foote is just a guy, and if this team is staying 3-4, we need more linebackers.

[esteban13]

Oh, and Timmons might be a bust.

[Coryea]

I wouldn't be shocked if we went with Mayo, LB from Tennessee in round one if the OT's are gone. 6'1" 242 and ran a 4.56 at the combine. He would be a good replacement for Farrior. And if Timmons can step up and live up to being a first round pick, that would give us 3 good young LB's.

[TMC]

I read one of the local writers stating they think Timmons will take over for Farrior. I'll see if I can find it.....

[TMC]

Well, that did not take long.....

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08115/876030-66.stm?cmpid=sports.xml

Q: Age and depth on defense's front three was on life support at the end of the year in 2007. Do you feel that addressing the middle linebackers with youth and finding James Farrior's replacement is a priority for the 2008 draft?

Joel Kingera, Pickerington, Ohio

BOUCHETTE: Age and lack of depth is a concern on the Steelers front three, but that has nothing to do with the linebackers. The Steelers starting defensive linemen are Aaron Smith, 32; Casey Hampton, 31 in September, and Brett Keisel, 30 in September. Top backup NT Chris Hoke is 32. There is little depth at end. Farrior's replacement, by the way, ultimately could be Lawrence Timmons.


IMO, for Bouchette to state this, he has probably asked the question to someone.

[dobre shunka]

Why? It's not like Ed is immune from talking out of his ass. I just don't see the things in Timmons that make him a buck candidate. Namely leadership and intelligence. He's never been in a leadership role. He has a quiet wallflower personality, so I don't think this is something that would come naturally to him. And I'm not saying Timmons is stupid, I'm just not sure he's got it like that. And when Tomlin drafted Timmons as an OLB, he said he was mack capable, not buck. I just don't see him as a guy who makes the calls, QBs the front 7, gets everyone lined right, reads the keys and makes adjustments. Maybe he gets there someday. Maybe the new radio helmets could help in that regard. But I think after the failure at OLB, I think all that's on the coaches minds right now is mack and only mack. Firsts things first. I think they want to see him get a handle on the mack before they entertain any ideas of bigger roles.

[Coryea]

I agree 100% Dobre.