it sounds like they didn't want to pay the money for Tate and/or decided to roll the dice with Bell. They gambled and lost.
We Did Not Lose Because of Bell
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
Maybe you should go back and run a google search about how Tate ended up in Minnesota after the Browns waived him. Heck, let me save you the effort. He was acquired when Minnesota submitted a claim and won his rights via the waiver procedure. That means that he wasn't available for the Steelers to sign at that time or any other time until Minnesota released him about 4 days or so before the Steelers signed him.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11904304/minnesota-vikings-claim-rb-ben-tate-waivers
One little blurb within:
So, even if the Steelers had put in a claim for Tate when he was waived by the Browns, they wouldn't have won the right to claim him due to Minnesota's inferior record.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 585
- Points
- 113
So let's see... My article posted Nov. 18 - a Tuesday,
Your article, posted Nov. 20, indicates he was claimed off waivers on Wednesday, Nov. 19
No idea what the timing was or the where the waiver wire was for the indicated teams, but your article lists only Arizona, Indianapolis and Minnesota made the claim - and Minnesota won out.
Now... if the Steelers were interested, I would think they would have least tried to make the claim. The fact is, they didn't, so they weren't.
They were satisfied with their 2 rookies as backups until they weren't. By then it was too late.
Maybe you should read your own article a little better as Scott Brown clearly states they weren't interested in Tate at the time. What I stated earlier was that it's possible they took a look around and thought that the RBs that were available were not a better option at that time than the combo of Archer and Harris. (Hence no interest in Tate).
Further, maybe you weren't paying attention during the season when all this happened, but, Tate was released for the same type of cancerous behavior that Blount was. Only instead of just walking out, he sat around bitching, crying and moaning about his reduced role in the Cleveland offense. So, at the time, you would have been cutting out a tumor only to replace it with .... a tumor. Don't you think it's possible that they decided that at that time Tate wasn't worth the hassle? And then when they signed him it was to a contract that only guaranteed him a share of the Wild Card bonus money. That meant, that if they had won and Bell was available, Tate could have been cut .. snap .. just like that.
In any event, is it not getting through to you that they wouldn't have been awarded Tate at the time Cleveland waived him anyway? There was no way possible for them to sign him at that time. Absolutely none.
I told you lol.
Hopefully, they keep Tate around next year. Bell will probably be suspended for the 1st three games of the season for his dope charges. I guess we will lose all three of those games since he is the team MVP.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 585
- Points
- 113
THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT.
The Steelers weren't interested in searching out a veteran replacement for Blount at the time of his release. They didn't even look at him. Then when Bell went down... all of a sudden the 2 rookies weren't good enough and they went after Tate who just happened to have been released from Minnesota.
So they didn't want another locker-room-cancer player at the time of Blounts release, but then they had no problem with the same locker-room-cancer player when Bell went down.
You're right... it wouldn't matter anyway if they tried but that happened AFTER they could have put the request in. You can't find out if a player's available to you if you don't even ask.
But besides that, did they pursue ANY other veterans that were available at that time? Nothing I don't recall any indication otherwise.
My argument is the perception that the Steelers were satisfied with their 2 rookie Running backs for Several weeks, then they weren't when Bell went down - if they wanted a veteran backup for Bell, no matter the conditions, they didn't pursue it until the situation was dire. Their misstep.
I agree it was a misstep, just maybe not in terms of Tate. I think the misstep happened on draft day and free agency. First, they knew that if required to carry the load, Archer is not "big" enough at this time (may never be). Second, they knew that Blount had a long history of being "temperamental" and a malcontent when he isn't getting the football. They drafted Archer and signed Blount anyway. I know hindsight is 20/20, but if they had drafted another RB instead of Archer or had looked for a different option than Blount in FA, do they still have the problem when Bell get's injured?
By the time they released Blount, I can't think of anyone other than Felix Jones type players who were available; i.e. guys who hadn't even been in a training camp and probably weren't in anywhere near football shape. Remember that Minny, Indy and Denver(?) had RB issues at the time Blount was released and none of them turned to the street free agents either. There had to be a reason for that.
I just feel like the two off season moves set this situation up far more than the failure to replace Blount with a street free agent.
By the time they released Blount, I can't think of anyone other than Felix Jones type players who were available; i.e. guys who hadn't even been in a training camp and probably weren't in anywhere near football shape. Remember that Minny, Indy and Denver(?) had RB issues at the time Blount was released and none of them turned to the street free agents either. There had to be a reason for that.
I just feel like the two off season moves set this situation up far more than the failure to replace Blount with a street free agent.
Last edited:
I get them not going after Tate. My problem was them not giving Harris any reps, and not trying to find someone else if he wasn't looking ready. You never bank on perfect health, even if no one can replace all the production the player gives.
yeah been harking on this in multiple threads
lot of interesting viewpoints
but the decision to even bring up Harris from the PS and then bring in Tate at the last second and force feed him showed they kicked the pooch on that thought process.......
The first half was good, they gave up 10 points, I'm thinking if they do that in the 2nd half as well, the Steelers win. As it turns out, 20 points would have been too many to concede.
Papillon
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,867
- Reaction score
- 1,132
- Points
- 113
With bell the offense probably would came out with more points but the defense just wasn't there to have won it. True is always somewhere in the middle.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 297
- Points
- 63
Saw a note yesterday that the Ravens are 2-1 in the playoffs against the Pat's but both wins were when the Pat's were without Gronkowski. Somewhat similar to the Steelers w/o Bell-a weapon that a team with big slower LB's has some problems accounting for and someone who kind of uniquely changes your offense. Be interesting to watch this weekend.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 903
- Points
- 113
Bell offense would've kept the defense off the field.