I know it's the media's job to question why the home town team does what it does (both on the field and off), but when did using common sense and good judgement no longer become a requirement when writing an article? There's another half-baked story in today's Pittsburgh paper (this time it's the Post-Gazette) by Bob Smizik about how the Steelers "backed away from the free agent market too quickly." Here's my first question: Is this still news? Weren't people talking about this last week after the signing of Duce Staley? What else can possibly be said that hasn't been said before?
Smizik doesn't disappoint with the same, tired, regurgitated arguments that even Joe Starkey made this weekend (if you've taken to writing about the same stuff Starkey writes about--three days later--I would suggest you might be in the wrong line of work). Let's take a look at some of Smizik's concerns:
"Staley is an upgrade but the Steelers made no significant move to improve themselves at cornerback or the offensive line, generally believed to be their weakest positions.Why do people (mostly people in the media) insist on signing average cornerback talent through free agency in a decidedly seller's market? Why would you overpay for average talent? The Steelers already have one overpaid cornerback. Antoine Winfield did Herm Edwards and the Jets a favor by bolting at the last minute to sign with the Vikings. Now, if they so choose, the Jets can get one of the top three cornerbacks in the draft (who are at least as competent as Winfield) at a much cheaper price (not to mention they're younger). In terms of offensive linemen, there wasn't much out their--either in terms of position or in the Steelers price range (Damien Woody is a G/C and Todd Steussie got a $20 million deal). Don't forget, the Steelers have nine picks in the upcoming draft and could also choose to trade down in the first round and get a few more picks.
The Steelers might have been better served by drafting a running back and using the money they gave Staley, a $4 million signing bonus, to go after a cornerback -- by far the team's greatest need."
Smizik goes on to write:
"The Steelers went hard after outside linebacker Marcus Washington, offering a signing bonus of about $5 million, before losing him to the wild-spending Washington Redskins. The move, the biggest the Steelers made in free agency, acknowledged what was widely known: The team has an acute weakness at outside linebacker.Why is it the case that because the Steelers took a OLB in the second round last year they were indicating that it was curtains for Haggans? At the start of last season the Steelers had Clark Haggans and newly drafted Alonzo Jackson backing up Joey Porter and Jason Gildon. Unless the Steelers were planning on carrying only three outside linebackers, I'm not sure how drafting Jackson was an indictment of Haggans. Resigning Haggans was a good move. I've said this before and I'll say it again: Who is Marcus Washington? Who new who he was before he visited Pittsburgh?
The need to sign Haggans points out what a major mistake the Steelers made in taking outside linebacker Alonzo Jackson with their second draft pick last year. When they took Jackson with such a high pick, the Steelers clearly seemed to be saying Haggans, who had been a backup for three seasons, was not part of their future. But when Jackson showed so little and couldn't even get onto the field, the Steelers went back to Haggans, the man they had so much as written off 10 months earlier."
There appears to be an epidemic in the Pittsburgh sports writing community. Anytime that Mark Madden is made to look like the (relative) voice of reason, there should be cause for concern. Thank God people like Jerry Dipaola, Gerry Dulac and Ed Bouchette take their jobs seriously enough to research what they write about before they write it.
