1 draft spot CAN make a difference.

[FSF]

While I always knew that Pittsburgh beat out Chicago for the rights to draft Terry Bradshaw via a coin flip in 1970 (under current rules Steelers would have had top pick due to tie breaker). There is no question Bradshaw's selection changed Steelers history.

But the NFL Network Caught in the Draft series for the years ending in 4 have been interesting:
We all know about Noll wanting to draft Stallworth in round one instead of Swann. It took the entire braintrust to convince Noll that Bill Nunn was the only one to really know what Stallworth was capable of and no one else would take him.

But the interesting part was how the Cowboys were picking right after the Steelers and they had their draft card in to select Swann. The debate in Pittsburgh nearly took the full 15 minutes and in fact the card with Swann's name on it was turned in with only 5 seconds left. The slightest delay and we may not have 4 Super Bowls.

In 2003 - the Steelers lost a meaningless game to the Ravens in week 17 in OT. That loss moved the Steelers to the head of the 3 way tie breaker (Bills, Jets) and enabled the selection of Roethlisberger when the Bills wanted him badly.

In 2007 Tomlin loved Revis, I don't know if word got out but the Jets traded up to select him. Maybe I got Coolie for Brains, but I am willing to bet he isn't the headcase he turned out to be if he played in Pittsburgh with their leadership and absence of Rex Ryan's feeding his head. And I say we beat Green Bay with Revis in 2010.

 

[dobre shunka]

The apocrypha of Revis/Tomlin has been repeated so many times it's become gospel. The Steelers had no intention of drafting Revis. They had every intention of trading their pick to Jacksonville if Revis made it the Steelers spot so that the Jags could draft him instead.

 

[FSF]

The apocrypha of Revis/Tomlin has been repeated so many times it's become gospel. The Steelers had no intention of drafting Revis. They had every intention of trading their pick to Jacksonville if Revis made it the Steelers spot so that the Jags could draft him instead.

Not at all saying you are wrong: far from it. I just never heard that, heard just the opposite an overwhelming number of times. When did this break? (not on as much as few years ago)

 

[FSF]

The apocrypha of Revis/Tomlin has been repeated so many times it's become gospel. The Steelers had no intention of drafting Revis. They had every intention of trading their pick to Jacksonville if Revis made it the Steelers spot so that the Jags could draft him instead.

Not at all saying you are wrong: far from it. I just never heard that, heard just the opposite an overwhelming number of times. When did this break? (not on as much as few years ago)

 

[dobre shunka]

The morning of the draft. Vic Ketchman, who I have the highest regard for, and Ed Bouchette, who I have the lowest regard for both reported it that morning. Ed buried it in his blog, iirc. Ketchman, who worked for Jaguars.com at the time reported it contemporaneously on his website. It's all gone now, but Ketchman has repeated the story several times since. And I'm pretty sure Bouchette has mentioned a couple/few times since then too. If it were just Ed, I'd have my doubts. But since Ketchman reported it as well and has stood by it, I'm inclined to believe it. Ketchman and Bouchette are BFFs, so it is possible that one got the story from the other rather than an inside source. But if Ketchman got it from Bouchette, I highly doubt he'd run with it without a second confirmation. And I especially doubt he'd continue to repeat the story after the fact, since the Jags would have nothing to lose by telling him there was no truth to it. Either way, I find Ketchman credible. What I don't find credible is that Tomlin had a hardon for Revis based on one direct question he was asked in a draft run up, where all he did was answer a question. There was more smoke surrounding Timmons predraft, and given how it all unfolded, only reinforces my belief that he was the pick all the way and not Revis.

 

[Super Dave]

Both of these links support Dobre's recollection.

The first one supports Vic Ketcham's reporting of a trade, the second link is a Jags board on draft day 2007 where they quote Vic reporting Ed Bouchette's blurb.

One could hypothesize that the Steelers used Bouchette to get the word out that Revis would be had @ 15 alerting the Jets to trade up to 14, thereby avoiding a scenario where the Steelers could regret (again) not drafting a Pitt great, and drafting the guy they wanted all along without having to risk losing him in a trade down.

http://blackandteal.com/2011/06/28/another-draft-disaster-reviewing-the-jaguars-2007-draft/

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=133062

 

[TMC]

Here is where I have to chime in. Sorry, but I just cannot help myself. When the Steelers were 5-8 last season, while they were not mathematically eliminated, they were basically out of it. I realize how they almost caught a perfect storm and got in, but reality is, they did not. If they had finished 5-11, they would have been drafting 9th.

So, while you still won't see guys like Clowney or Mack, you could see Evans, Matthews, or maybe Robinson fall in you lap. At worst, you would be in a position to slip back into the mid-teens (where we are now) and pick up a 2nd or 3rd.

While many will chime in about culture of losing, I just do not agree. I think it is the front office's job to assess this teams situation at all times and make those calls for the future of the franchise. You could have also called up guys like Arnfelt to find out what he actually had instead of heading into a new season with a bunch of questions.

 

[diver]

Here is where I have to chime in. Sorry, but I just cannot help myself. When the Steelers were 5-8 last season, while they were not mathematically eliminated, they were basically out of it. I realize how they almost caught a perfect storm and got in, but reality is, they did not. If they had finished 5-11, they would have been drafting 9th.

So, while you still won't see guys like Clowney or Mack, you could see Evans, Matthews, or maybe Robinson fall in you lap. At worst, you would be in a position to slip back into the mid-teens (where we are now) and pick up a 2nd or 3rd.

While many will chime in about culture of losing, I just do not agree. I think it is the front office's job to assess this teams situation at all times and make those calls for the future of the franchise. You could have also called up guys like Arnfelt to find out what he actually had instead of heading into a new season with a bunch of questions.

I understand your thought on this. I just hate the thought of it. Hate it. How do you do it? Do you tell guys not to play as hard? What message does that send? Do you sit healthy guys? Call nothing but running plays? Don't blitz on defense?

I am not trying to an argumentative ***, but how do you purposely lose in football? Most of us have played at one time or another. Pride and the fear of not only losing but being embarrassed out there make it hard to get a whole football team to lay down I would think.

 

[TMC]

I understand your thought on this. I just hate the thought of it. Hate it. How do you do it? Do you tell guys not to play as hard? What message does that send? Do you sit healthy guys? Call nothing but running plays? Don't blitz on defense?

I am not trying to an argumentative ***, but how do you purposely lose in football? Most of us have played at one time or another. Pride and the fear of not only losing but being embarrassed out there make it hard to get a whole football team to lay down I would think.

Well, they had these players on roster at the time: Robert Golden, Shamarko Thomas, Antwaan Blake, Chris Carter, Terrance Garvin, Brian Arnfelt, David Paulson, Palmer, Hebron Fangupo, Jarvis Jones, Derek Moye, I. Green, Stevenson Sylvester, and D. Snow (center).

So, why not sit Hood and play Arnfelt? Why not play Fangupo? Moye over Sanders or Cotchery? Why not sit Miller, who had a horrific injury, and play one of the backup TEs? Hell, get Jones in there. Play some of these young DBs.

We are entering the draft and we do not know if Arnfelt can play, even be a solid backup, and we had 3 games to, at the very least, find something out. Same with Fangupo. Are those 4th/5th corners worth a **** or did we pay them just to hang around and pat the back of the aging starters?

You just DO NOT dress some of those guys and play the younger guys. At that point, those veterans had shown what they could do and many have now hit free agency and the team did not make an effort to even try to retain many of them. So, it is not like they did not know they were going to let them walk. Why not see what was behind them. We look at Heyward now and, now think about this, he SAT behind Ziggy Hood. How much further along could he be right now? It could have answered a shitload of questions and what IF they won with those guys? Same boat as now right? Nope, we would know they could play. The draft would not carry all the questions it now does.

I never stated that I think you tell your coach to lose or your players. But, as a GM, you tell them that you want these players deactivated and you need to see these young guys plays.

 

[FSF]

I understand your thought on this. I just hate the thought of it. Hate it. How do you do it? Do you tell guys not to play as hard? What message does that send? Do you sit healthy guys? Call nothing but running plays? Don't blitz on defense?

I am not trying to an argumentative ***, but how do you purposely lose in football? Most of us have played at one time or another. Pride and the fear of not only losing but being embarrassed out there make it hard to get a whole football team to lay down I would think.

The ironic thing is that in 2003 - even though the Steelers did lose that last game to Baltimore (to which I am thankful since it got us Big Ben and 2/3 Super Bowls), but they played HARD. It was their effort that swayed Dick LeBeau to return in 2004.

A win in that game and our entire mini dynasty of the 2000s doesn't happen, its a repeat of the 1990s.

 

[steelerscotty]

I understand your thought on this. I just hate the thought of it. Hate it. How do you do it? Do you tell guys not to play as hard? What message does that send? Do you sit healthy guys? Call nothing but running plays? Don't blitz on defense?

I am not trying to an argumentative ***, but how do you purposely lose in football? Most of us have played at one time or another. Pride and the fear of not only losing but being embarrassed out there make it hard to get a whole football team to lay down I would think.

You don't do it, period! If you do then you become the Cleveland Browns. Any one who thinks we should lose games on purpose needs to just switch to a browns fan, that way they will always have a top 5 pick to drool over every year.

 

[SteelerFan448]

As a paying costumer, I'd be pissed if they played a bunch of scrubs down the stretch to play for a better draft position. I don't pay $100 a game to watch preseason quality football during the regular season. If they lose draft position, the front office needs to find other ways to make the football team better.

 

[diver]

Well, they had these players on roster at the time: Robert Golden, Shamarko Thomas, Antwaan Blake, Chris Carter, Terrance Garvin, Brian Arnfelt, David Paulson, Palmer, Hebron Fangupo, Jarvis Jones, Derek Moye, I. Green, Stevenson Sylvester, and D. Snow (center).

So, why not sit Hood and play Arnfelt? Why not play Fangupo? Moye over Sanders or Cotchery? Why not sit Miller, who had a horrific injury, and play one of the backup TEs? Hell, get Jones in there. Play some of these young DBs.

We are entering the draft and we do not know if Arnfelt can play, even be a solid backup, and we had 3 games to, at the very least, find something out. Same with Fangupo. Are those 4th/5th corners worth a **** or did we pay them just to hang around and pat the back of the aging starters?

You just DO NOT dress some of those guys and play the younger guys. At that point, those veterans had shown what they could do and many have now hit free agency and the team did not make an effort to even try to retain many of them. So, it is not like they did not know they were going to let them walk. Why not see what was behind them. We look at Heyward now and, now think about this, he SAT behind Ziggy Hood. How much further along could he be right now? It could have answered a shitload of questions and what IF they won with those guys? Same boat as now right? Nope, we would know they could play. The draft would not carry all the questions it now does.

I never stated that I think you tell your coach to lose or your players. But, as a GM, you tell them that you want these players deactivated and you need to see these young guys plays.

I couldn't give a **** about other teams, so I don't know the answer to this. But do other teams that appear to be out of it do this? The reason I ask is at what point does it become obvious and you get a call from Goodell? Or wouldn't be an issue? I don't really know the answer to that.

I am with you in that I would have liked to see some of those moves. However, they ain't sitting Ben and some others, for example. There is a good possibility that they still win those 3 games if Arnfelt and some of the young DBs play. You are kind of arguing two things here. Your premise, if I am correct, was that the Steelers should have lost those 3 games. I am for playing the younger guys to see what they have, but there is no guarantee they lose. The only way to have that happen is to lay down.

 

[Wingman]

I understand your thought on this. I just hate the thought of it. Hate it. How do you do it? Do you tell guys not to play as hard? What message does that send? Do you sit healthy guys? Call nothing but running plays? Don't blitz on defense?

I am not trying to an argumentative ***, but how do you purposely lose in football? Most of us have played at one time or another. Pride and the fear of not only losing but being embarrassed out there make it hard to get a whole football team to lay down I would think.

I have to side with TMC on this one for the following reasons. Once playoffs are assured and a team can not improve their position teams nearly always rest starters and they play the back ups at many positions. The idea of what you are paying for is moot. The team can be looking to make a strategic decision instead of a tactical one. The thinking in play would be we have ruined this season, why risk our best players to pick lower in the draft by winning meaningless games and possibly ruin next years season as well. They could also look at it as moving up in the draft for free and being able to climb out of the hole of mediocrity they have found themselves in. It is also a time to see what type of players are on your roster as back ups so that informed decisions can be made for the following season as to talent to draft and players to keep or allow to become free agents.

 

[deljzc]

I don't really agree with TMC on this one.

My opinion has always been to separate GM and coaching duties. The GM is in charge of the groceries. The coach is in charge of the meal.

If I am a GM, I want my coach to win as many games as possible. Period. That's his job. His job is not to make my job easier. He shouldn't have to play guys in order for me to decide whether they can play or not. I should already know. There is enough practice footage and coach feedback to know if a guy is coming along or not that isn't based on Sundays.

To me we both (GM and coach) should be trying our best every week, every day, every hour. That sets the tone for the entire organization. We don't "punt" when we are out of it or take the easy way out. The tone the GM and coach take (and thus the organization) is the example you set and expect from your players. Players will remember if you "give up" on a season. Why should they play hard if I'm putting Arnsfeld in to see if he can play or not when everyone in that locker room knows he doesn't deserve the playing time?

I think it's very counterproductive.

When a season starts 2-6, there are problems both with coaching and GM work. We know that. But to me, as an owner, I am still evaluating the coach's performance. He has 16 games. You don't NOT give him 16 games to coach and put his work on record because the first 8 sucked balls. You let him coach to the best of his ability. I actually think there are some things to find out about how good a coach is when the season is lost. I think there are some character traits that get revealed. I'm not saying I give the coach a pass for what he did in the beginning of the season. His record is his record.

I guess it's just not in my nature as a "coach" (and I've coached some things here and there and helped out) to believe good coaching includes looking so far ahead you try to undermine your team (by possibly playing players that aren't deserving or give you the best shot at winning) so you get a better draft choice. I just don't believe that's the definition of a "coach". And I think players will see though the charade, which could really harm a locker room.

 

[diver]

I have to side with TMC on this one for the following reasons. Once playoffs are assured and a team can not improve their position teams nearly always rest starters and they play the back ups at many positions. The idea of what you are paying for is moot. The team can be looking to make a strategic decision instead of a tactical one. The thinking in play would be we have ruined this season, why risk our best players to pick lower in the draft by winning meaningless games and possibly ruin next years season as well. They could also look at it as moving up in the draft for free and being able to climb out of the hole of mediocrity they have found themselves in. It is also a time to see what type of players are on your roster as back ups so that informed decisions can be made for the following season as to talent to draft and players to keep or allow to become free agents.

It is interesting that you bring this up. It was always one of my frustrations with Cowher and some of his coachspeak. He would say in years they weren't doing well that they had to play the vets so as not to mess with the integrity of the game. Yet when they had the playoffs and seeding locked, he would rest starters. What about the integrity?

Where I have evolved on this is that there is no guarantee that if they play younger guys, they lose. I am all for that, seeing what you have to plan for the next year. But what if they play well and you win? The premise here is that they should have lost the last 3 to improve their draft position. No way you can guarantee that unless you throw the games.

 

[diver]

Another thing, what can really be determined in 3 games, anyway?

We had a thread with I don't know how many pages when they transitioned Worilds. Many were upset because they felt he hadn't shown productivity over a long enough time to warrant it. Can you really make any real decisions over 3 games?

 

[TMC]

It is interesting that you bring this up. It was always one of my frustrations with Cowher and some of his coachspeak. He would say in years they weren't doing well that they had to play the vets so as not to mess with the integrity of the game. Yet when they had the playoffs and seeding locked, he would rest starters. What about the integrity?

Where I have evolved on this is that there is no guarantee that if they play younger guys, they lose. I am all for that, seeing what you have to plan for the next year. But what if they play well and you win? The premise here is that they should have lost the last 3 to improve their draft position. No way you can guarantee that unless you throw the games.

You cannot cut players to bring lesser guys on roster to guarantee a loss. You would be giving up talent, but you can sit guys, especially guys that have battled injury, just like you would if you made the playoffs. You cannot guarantee a loss anymore than you can guarantee a win. The only thing you can do is sit guys where you have younger players and play the depth. It handicaps you to an extent and allows you to find out what you have.

Del, do you really think you know from practice how guys perform in games? You think Ziggy Hood was outperforming Heyward in practice? Do you think Heyward was winning the battles and the coaches just said, screw it, we are playing Hood? If he was outperforming Hood in practice and your GM sees it, shouldn't he question the coach? If he was not outperforming Hood, then the lights came on when he faced other teams, meaning you need to play some guys.

As for the GM buying the groceries and the HC cooking. Colbert bought Max Starks with a transition tag, an expensive cut of meat, and the HC placed him in the freezer for almost a whole season. Tomlin has input on the draft. He has input on free agents. He also throws out food prior to the start of the season.

Do you really think they cut players like Woodley without getting input from Tomlin? I think they could sit down with a couple games left and have a plan going forward. Not real hard.

I guess if you are in this for the short term, then you sweat all the details. I think that is very short sighted. Probably why the Steelers end up with so damn many holes heading into the next season because nobody is long-term planning. We draft to fill holes right now. Nobody looks to next year or the following year.

 

[Wingman]

It is interesting that you bring this up. It was always one of my frustrations with Cowher and some of his coachspeak. He would say in years they weren't doing well that they had to play the vets so as not to mess with the integrity of the game. Yet when they had the playoffs and seeding locked, he would rest starters. What about the integrity?

Where I have evolved on this is that there is no guarantee that if they play younger guys, they lose. I am all for that, seeing what you have to plan for the next year. But what if they play well and you win? The premise here is that they should have lost the last 3 to improve their draft position. No way you can guarantee that unless you throw the games.

You are right that they could win with back ups. Do you think that with a season in a shambles and a long shot requiring three other games to fall just so is a real chance. Three games would be three more than they had with them sitting on the bench. Playing will help them get better more so than practice. Would it have been smart if Ben blew out a knee that killed next season as well as the end of this one. When the playoffs are nearly out of reach it would be smart to play as many back ups as possible and rest your best players, unless you subscribe to the run-em till the wheels fall off theory. Same thing with locking in a certain position and having games that can not change your spot in the playoffs. The only difference is in one case you are in in the other you are not.

Do you really think we would be winning those games with our 2nd and third string qbs. our back up line and back ups that we had from other positions? Thought so. It is also more time to let our best players get better, the list of injuries by the end of the season is fairly extensive for any of those guys needing procedures another 3 weeks of recovery time could be huge the following year. Think in terms of looking past the next three weeks and think of the next three years.

 

[Stoney]

Totally agree with TMC on this one. Of course you wouldn't tell guys not to play hard, thats nuts. But you play AB less, Troy less, Timmons, Sanders, Ike all get less playing time in order to assess the very young guys. The O-line is the only place I'd put my best players, but I'd still pull Ben as soon as a game got out of hand. With that, we surely would've lost 1-2 more games, the fans would still get to see the big name players for a portion of each games, and young guys get a chance to prove themselves while getting valuable game time.

And then we could possibly have gotten some real help in this draft.

 

[diver]

You are right that they could win with back ups. Do you think that with a season in a shambles and a long shot requiring three other games to fall just so is a real chance. Three games would be three more than they had with them sitting on the bench. Playing will help them get better more so than practice. Would it have been smart if Ben blew out a knee that killed next season as well as the end of this one. When the playoffs are nearly out of reach it would be smart to play as many back ups as possible and rest your best players, unless you subscribe to the run-em till the wheels fall off theory. Same thing with locking in a certain position and having games that can not change your spot in the playoffs. The only difference is in one case you are in in the other you are not.

Do you really think we would be winning those games with our 2nd and third string qbs. our back up line and back ups that we had from other positions? Thought so. It is also more time to let our best players get better, the list of injuries by the end of the season is fairly extensive for any of those guys needing procedures another 3 weeks of recovery time could be huge the following year. Think in terms of looking past the next three weeks and think of the next three years.

So you are going to sit Ben and all those guys and start 2nd/3rd stringers? You think that will fly with the league? With the fans who paid money to go see the last few games? If that is the case, you are throwing the games. Just say so, don't hide behind this idea of "seeing what you have." You want them to lay down. Pathetic. Again, if Jason Worilds in 4 years didn't give enough info to some to warrant the transition tag, how the hell do you get real information to make a decision on guys in 3 damn games?

 

[diver]

Totally agree with TMC on this one. Of course you wouldn't tell guys not to play hard, thats nuts. But you play AB less, Troy less, Timmons, Sanders, Ike all get less playing time in order to assess the very young guys. The O-line is the only place I'd put my best players, but I'd still pull Ben as soon as a game got out of hand. With that, we surely would've lost 1-2 more games, the fans would still get to see the big name players for a portion of each games, and young guys get a chance to prove themselves while getting valuable game time.

And then we could possibly have gotten some real help in this draft.

Hold it. The premise advanced here was to finish 5-11 so as to draft 9th. Even 1 more win I would assume changes that, so they ain't drafting 9th. Maybe they are 11 or 12. Is that worth it? I will continue to argue that to lose all three you have to do more than just play younger guys. It has to be purposeful losing. I can't square that.

 

[t-man]

If you're eliminated mathematically then whatever, If you want to play scrubs the last few games that's fine. If you're still in it, you play the guys that give you the best chance to see the postseason. There is no way you allow a post season to slip away while you still have a chance, because as we've all seen, once you're there it really is anyone's for the taking. Gone are the days of knowing who was getting bounced from the playoffs, the talent levels and matchups are just so close now you simply can't as an organization, take the chance that the one game you decided to play all your scrubs and lost by a point was the game that would have put you in the postseason. THAT would be in ******* sane.

Now, once you're out of it, **** yeah, I'm all for rest the starters and see what the young guys have to offer, but I'm hoping we don't have that conversation anytime soon.

Joe

 

[Wingman]

So you are going to sit Ben and all those guys and start 2nd/3rd stringers? You think that will fly with the league? With the fans who paid money to go see the last few games? If that is the case, you are throwing the games. Just say so, don't hide behind this idea of "seeing what you have." You want them to lay down. Pathetic. Again, if Jason Worilds in 4 years didn't give enough info to some to warrant the transition tag, how the hell do you get real information to make a decision on guys in 3 damn games?

Those guys are on the team and allowed to play. Is it any less throwing the game when a team rests its starters for the playoffs? what about the teams that need to have help to get into the play offs and a 12 and 1 team rests its starters, are they not throwing the games and effecting the other teams trying for the playoffs. What if your players are banged up. I would love to see the league try to make coaching decisions for another team and that is what it is. There is no telling anyone not to play to win, no shaving of points, the team would just be playing other players on its team.

 

[deljzc]

You cannot cut players to bring lesser guys on roster to guarantee a loss. You would be giving up talent, but you can sit guys, especially guys that have battled injury, just like you would if you made the playoffs. You cannot guarantee a loss anymore than you can guarantee a win. The only thing you can do is sit guys where you have younger players and play the depth. It handicaps you to an extent and allows you to find out what you have.

Del, do you really think you know from practice how guys perform in games? You think Ziggy Hood was outperforming Heyward in practice? Do you think Heyward was winning the battles and the coaches just said, screw it, we are playing Hood? If he was outperforming Hood in practice and your GM sees it, shouldn't he question the coach? If he was not outperforming Hood, then the lights came on when he faced other teams, meaning you need to play some guys.

As for the GM buying the groceries and the HC cooking. Colbert bought Max Starks with a transition tag, an expensive cut of meat, and the HC placed him in the freezer for almost a whole season. Tomlin has input on the draft. He has input on free agents. He also throws out food prior to the start of the season.

Do you really think they cut players like Woodley without getting input from Tomlin? I think they could sit down with a couple games left and have a plan going forward. Not real hard.

I guess if you are in this for the short term, then you sweat all the details. I think that is very short sighted. Probably why the Steelers end up with so damn many holes heading into the next season because nobody is long-term planning. We draft to fill holes right now. Nobody looks to next year or the following year.

If a coach isn't playing the right guys, then he isn't "cooking" very well, is he? And that falls on his job performance.

Giving Max Starks that much money fall on Colbert. Not playing Heyward over Hood falls on Tomlin.

I do think Tomlin has a lot of "input" on the roster, but the GM getting input and more information from the coaches is part of his job and part of his decision making. But the decisions should END with him. And those decisions are his responsibility alone and he owns them.

To me, a GM can't use an excuse "the coaches wanted this guy". You either sign off on it or not. A GM can use the excuse "the coaches aren't playing the right people". That is for an owner to decide in his coaching review/evaluation. A GM can use the excuse "the coaches aren't teaching well and developing talent well". Again, another evaluation process that might be hard to "quantify" but still a criteria in evaluation.

Someone has to decide if the GM and coach are doing a good job (I assume it's the owner). The things you describe seem pretty easy to assign blame to either party.

And I agree Colbert has not done a good job in long term planning lately. Once the season ends, his focus on building a roster and salary cap structure should not be just for the next season, but the next couple of seasons. And he should use Tomlin's input to help that cause. If Tomlin's opinions are too short-sighted, then it's Colbert's job to redirect the vision to both short and long term goals. He has the right to veto and shape the development of the roster. That's his job description.