Chuks Is Back (Sigh)

[SteelBuckeye]

I still can’t for the life of me understand how this happened. It could very well be the difference between having Tyrann Matheiu back there with Minkah or the return of mr. out of position T Edmunds…

If they want Mathieu and he wants to come here, they still have $20M in caps space until the Witherspoon deal gets done. Even after that, there should be around $12M and the ability to restructure a contract or two "IF" they choose to. The $$$ they gave Chuks is not and will not affect their ability to sign anyone to a reasonable contract.

 

[Wolf44]

Still too much money for a poor player. Money wasted is never good, we could have had better for less, Moses.

 

[SteelBuckeye]

Still too much money for a poor player. Money wasted is never good, we could have had better for less, Moses.

I'm tired of reading this nonsense. Some of you people are stuck in 10 years ago FA. Lets break it down, Chuks got a 3 year 29.25m deal after two years of starting. His signing bonus was 9,750,000. That's 3,083,333 per year of the deal. His base salary for this season is 1,250,000. Bringing his cap hit for this year at a measly 4,333,333. That's for our starting RT. That's chump change. And the way that it's structured, they have an out after this year, but if he improves with better players beside him, he'll still be a cheap starting RT.

In other news, the Chiefs just signed a WR that has never had more than 700 yards, and never had more than 38 catches, for 3 years 30m, and the Jags signed a WR who has never had 1,000 yards in a season to a 4 year deal worth up to 84m. His cap hit in the first year is 7,500,000, and next year jumps to 21,500,000. And you guys want to ***** about Chuks contract... smh

Insaniti pretty much sums it up right there. And, repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make you right.
I too wished they would have found a different, better, option than Chuks. But, since they chose to bring him back, I'm glad they chose to structure his contract in such a way that they will be able to get out from under it with as little damage to future caps as possible should his play not improve. If it does improve, it's an even better deal for the team.

 

[slashsteel]

Still too much money for a poor player. Money wasted is never good, we could have had better for less, Moses.

You are one of those types. Someone shows your view as slanted but you will continue on with the mouth froth.

It isn't money wasted when he is a starter. Like most of their contracts it is year one friendly. Try to sink it in. It also doesn't prevent them from drafting competition.

Najee's strengths are inside which upgrades were obtained.

 

[SteelerFan448]

You are one of those types. Someone shows your view as slanted but you will continue on with the mouth froth.

It isn't money wasted when he is a starter. Like most of their contracts it is year one friendly. Try to sink it in. It also doesn't prevent them from drafting competition.

Najee's strengths are inside which upgrades were obtained.

I don't know, I understand the point of overpaying. Now the way this contract it's structured, but just because some team that generally poorly run wants to overpay a guy, it doesn't make the Steelers choices any better. I would've preferred to move on, however, it's essentially a one-year deal so it isn't as bad as the total suggests...yet.

 

[slashsteel]

I don't know, I understand the point of overpaying. Now the way this contract it's structured, but just because some team that generally poorly run wants to overpay a guy, it doesn't make the Steelers choices any better. I would've preferred to move on, however, it's essentially a one-year deal so it isn't as bad as the total suggests...yet.

I thought his age and market availability weighed heavily. As did some interest his way. I heard multiple teams. You risk in the shuffle actually downgrading the position. I get the desire to upgrade just thought they might have really had to overpay for a slight upgrade and that still could have came with age concerns. With upgrading the interior and possible improvement on the LT side I thought that was pretty decent for an offseason. We still could very well see a RT, G, or C at some point in the draft value permitting.

I also am taking notice that their approach this offseason was to upgrade without having to do a lot of kicking the can down the road cap wise. Even if they do one or two restructures it is less a plus IMO as far as that goes.

 

[Drink IRON City]

I thought his age and market availability weighed heavily. As did some interest his way. I heard multiple teams. You risk in the shuffle actually downgrading the position. I get the desire to upgrade just thought they might have really had to overpay for a slight upgrade and that still could have came with age concerns. With upgrading the interior and possible improvement on the LT side I thought that was pretty decent for an offseason. We still could very well see a RT, G, or C at some point in the draft value permitting.

I also am taking notice that their approach this offseason was to upgrade without having to do a lot of kicking the can down the road cap wise. Even if they do one or two restructures it is less a plus IMO as far as that goes.

Excellent post slash and thank you.

Chuk's contract is about as friendly as it can get. We signed a two year starter experienced player for peanuts and 2nd year option with nearly no cap ramifications should we cut him.

He has shown improvement and hope he continues on that path.




Salute the nation

 

[Wolf44]

You are one of those types. Someone shows your view as slanted but you will continue on with the mouth froth.

It isn't money wasted when he is a starter. Like most of their contracts it is year one friendly. Try to sink it in. It also doesn't prevent them from drafting competition.

Najee's strengths are inside which upgrades were obtained.

Ok great. EVERY poor player in the NFL is paid. Your opinion is no better or right than mine. In fact Chuks is rated the 61st best tackle in the NFL and is getting paid as a good player. Again dead cap money is never a good thing for a bad player but continue your rationalizing and frothing at the mouth.

 

[BamaSteeler52]

Ok great. EVERY poor player in the NFL is paid. Your opinion is no better or right than mine. In fact Chuks is rated the 61st best tackle in the NFL and is getting paid as a good player. Again dead cap money is never a good thing for a bad player but continue your rationalizing and frothing at the mouth.

They should have just got rid of everyone of them, they all sucked.

 

[slashsteel]

Ok great. EVERY poor player in the NFL is paid. Your opinion is no better or right than mine. In fact Chuks is rated the 61st best tackle in the NFL and is getting paid as a good player. Again dead cap money is never a good thing for a bad player but continue your rationalizing and frothing at the mouth.

Obviously none of what anyone said sunk in. I loved your I am not frothing at the mouth you are ! rebuttal. Bet that goes over well in the schoolyard. Yeah everything is based on ratings. Perhaps the Steelers ratings isn't quite as bad. Again it is a low based contract when there wasn't many options. It doesn't prevent drafting another tackle.

So who would you have brought in as an upgrade?

Go back to the site you pulled your rating from maybe you will figure out someone.

I will help you out you probably wouldn't have gotten whoever any cheaper including their dead money capable.

Now say the Steelers took a risk on a higher priced tackle say an aging one. In the process they took a cheaper option at G or C. Then that T gets hurt or declines to the point that Chukes has a better season elsewhere.

Not only were the replacements not upgraded on the interior adequately, but you are stuck with worse play at three positions.

If Chukes holds steady or improves and the interior upgrades then Najee has more holes to run, setting up play action passing,etc.

But by all means focus in on your "opinion".