And my point is that statement pretty much summarizes how bad this organization was in building it's offensive line for over half a decade. We think Max Starks was a "good" player only because we are comparing him to what other options we had. History has proven the league (and people outside of Pittsburgh) think Max Starks is a very below average tackle. He was a complete FREE AGENT only 24 months after receiving $10 million guaranteed from this organization, was only 29 years old, was healthy and capable of playing (albeit fat and out of shape), and NOT ONE TEAM wanted him. He was on his couch and unemployed throughout all of August and September. By definition, that means 32 teams thought both their STARTING TACKLES (64 each) and their primary backup (32 each) were better than Max Starks. That is not a good player.
I also believe at that point his age was a factor. There comes a point that no matter how good or bad a player was his age will move him out of the game. There is also the salary cap thing to consider as well. If a team does not see a major change in quality over their own they may not wish to eat dead money from what they have and sign another player that may only be a small upgrade over what they have. Max was a lot better than what we have now. He moved decent and blocked fairly well, a great example of a good play by Max was in the SB on the long run by FWP.