What to think about Jason Worilds.

[deljzc]

I have a tough time understanding why paying him $25-$30 million over the next three seasons is better than getting him under contract at 80% of Kruger's contract this year.

You talk about "risk", but we are tied to him this season. If he's good enough to put all our eggs into his basket this year AND pay him $9.75 million how can he not be good enough to give a 5-year, $32 million w/ $16 million guaranteed. You are already guaranteeing him almost $10 million! You're really worried about another $6 million?

I would have jumped all over 5-years, $32 million. And I would have outbid any team out there that offered him that in free agency.

Again, you're going to look back in 2017 or 2018 and see we probably "signed" him to a 6-year, $50+ million deal with $28 million in guaranteed (that's anticipating this 1-year deal + a 5-year deal negotiated under the franchise tag next year).

I just don't understand this "not knowing" about our prospects. Our front office should be more clued into who is heading in the right direction and who isn't and get those guys under contract BEFORE we get to this point. It's like we're completely ******* surprised Worilds is now good enough to be our starting LOLB or Keenan Lewis became a B+ starter or Max Starks was going to be the stop-gap option at LT for going on 3-4 seasons.

Don't they know what they have in Cortez Allen right now? Do they really need this year to know "for sure"?

 

[Vader]

Because I find it pretty silly that you're so skeptical of my post when it's what actually happened in real life.

To answer your question, I don't think paying Worilds under the transition tag is the most practical thing, but it beats the hell out of paying Woodley another 10 million to sit on the bench. Unfortunately it's not always feasible to do the economical thing. Getting rid of both was NOT going to happen, so who would I rather take? The perrenially injured lackadaisical Woodley who hasn't been able to stay healthy since he signed his contract, or the healthier (but still not proven to be healthy himself) younger, and driven Worilds? The choice is clear.

2014 is a prove it year for Worilds, just like 2013 was for Woodley. Woodley failed his test, if Worilds fails his, you cut bait and put OLB at the top of your need chart for the draft.

At least Woodley was health for his first 3 or so seasons. Worilds has been hurt MORE than Woodley playing PART TIME. Again, he is hurt NOW. He was hurt the last game of last year. He's NEVER proven to be healthy.... NEVER. So Yes, I'd rather pay a guy who actually played health for 3 seasons than a guy who's NEVER been healthy... but that's just me. I'd also rather pay a guy who has proven he can play at a pro-bowl level than a guy who has EIGHT games of decent play under his belt... of course before he got hurt again.

 

[Litos]

I have a tough time understanding why paying him $25-$30 million over the next three seasons is better than getting him under contract at 80% of Kruger's contract this year.

You talk about "risk", but we are tied to him this season. If he's good enough to put all our eggs into his basket this year AND pay him $9.75 million how can he not be good enough to give a 5-year, $32 million w/ $16 million guaranteed. You are already guaranteeing him almost $10 million! You're really worried about another $6 million?

I would have jumped all over 5-years, $32 million. And I would have outbid any team out there that offered him that in free agency.

Again, you're going to look back in 2017 or 2018 and see we probably "signed" him to a 6-year, $50+ million deal with $28 million in guaranteed (that's anticipating this 1-year deal + a 5-year deal negotiated under the franchise tag next year).

I just don't understand this "not knowing" about our prospects. Our front office should be more clued into who is heading in the right direction and who isn't and get those guys under contract BEFORE we get to this point. It's like we're completely ******* surprised Worilds is now good enough to be our starting LOLB or Keenan Lewis became a B+ starter or Max Starks was going to be the stop-gap option at LT for going on 3-4 seasons.

Don't they know what they have in Cortez Allen right now? Do they really need this year to know "for sure"?

problem is that I bet they offered him something like that and he rejected it. Probably another team told him they'd offer him something around 40 millions for 5 years

 

[keslerclan]

I have a tough time understanding why paying him $25-$30 million over the next three seasons is better than getting him under contract at 80% of Kruger's contract this year.

You talk about "risk", but we are tied to him this season. If he's good enough to put all our eggs into his basket this year AND pay him $9.75 million how can he not be good enough to give a 5-year, $32 million w/ $16 million guaranteed. You are already guaranteeing him almost $10 million! You're really worried about another $6 million?

I would have jumped all over 5-years, $32 million. And I would have outbid any team out there that offered him that in free agency.

Again, you're going to look back in 2017 or 2018 and see we probably "signed" him to a 6-year, $50+ million deal with $28 million in guaranteed (that's anticipating this 1-year deal + a 5-year deal negotiated under the franchise tag next year).

I just don't understand this "not knowing" about our prospects. Our front office should be more clued into who is heading in the right direction and who isn't and get those guys under contract BEFORE we get to this point. It's like we're completely ******* surprised Worilds is now good enough to be our starting LOLB or Keenan Lewis became a B+ starter or Max Starks was going to be the stop-gap option at LT for going on 3-4 seasons.

Don't they know what they have in Cortez Allen right now? Do they really need this year to know "for sure"?

I agree del, BUT like YOU have been saying...I don't think they DO KNOW anything about their players. Look what happened with Woodley. Butler was bitching about his conditioning efforts BEFORE he was signed to his big contract AND in spite of this history, they continued to make it impossible to get rid of him by extending him further. Then you take a guy like Harrison who obviously takes care of himself and sets a good example and cut him. I think Worilds surprised them last year with his performances at LOLB. He would have easily been retained for 4/20 or less if all he did was based on his performance at ROLB. Don't you agree?

As far as Cortez goes, I would certainly trust what Lake has to say about his 'potential' but given the FO past history:
-NOT even making an offer to Lewis
-Woodley (see above)
-Harrison (see above)
-not even realizing that Woods was negotiating w Titans until it was too late
-not trading the average Sanders while he had some value
-keeping guys like Hood and Carter while not trying to find a replacement until **** hit the fan (this year)
- the 'strange' approach to tendering FAs Wallace and Worilds
- the overall lack of depth on the team
-dishing guys like Robinson while keeping Carter
-being TOTALLY blindsided by the injury of the average Foote with nary a skilled player behind him forcing a HOF safety to play ILB for the year!

Yeah...I think they need this year to know. You've already said it, Colbert is a good "scout" and PR guy but NOT a GM. A good GM would sit all his coaches down and try to figure out a 3-yr plan at least.

 

[deljzc]

problem is that I bet they offered him something like that and he rejected it. Probably another team told him they'd offer him something around 40 millions for 5 years

Whatever the "line in the sand" price was going to be with Worilds, I would have much rather they offered it to him and let the cards fall where they may rather than go down this path with the transition tag. If Worilds skips down thinking the grass is greener, so be it and I just keep Woodley and his hamstrings around another year or two. As previously mentioned it's not like Worilds health history is so much less of a risk than Woodley.

The way things are headed, there really isn't all that much different cap wise or cash wise in Worilds w/ his 1-year deal vs. Woodley with his inflated and previously renegotiated contract.

All that's different is the perceived injury risk. I think PFF actually had Woodley better snap for snap vs. Worilds over the past couple of seasons.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I think you guys are arguing with the benefit of hindsight here. No team in their right minds would have signed Worilds to even a middling deal a season ago. He had proved nothing.

Hell, he still proved nothing almost halfway into last season. The pipe starts flowing and you decide to hand him a huge deal? Even Kruger money was too much back then.

I cannot think of the team in the league that practices that kind of preventative signing. You are paid for production, not promises.

At least Woodley was health for his first 3 or so seasons. Worilds has been hurt MORE than Woodley playing PART TIME. Again, he is hurt NOW. He was hurt the last game of last year. He's NEVER proven to be healthy.... NEVER. So Yes, I'd rather pay a guy who actually played health for 3 seasons than a guy who's NEVER been healthy... but that's just me. I'd also rather pay a guy who has proven he can play at a pro-bowl level than a guy who has EIGHT games of decent play under his belt... of course before he got hurt again.

Being hurt in May/Early June means nothing. If Worilds is still hurt come September, that'll be an issue, but i'm not at all concerned about him missing football in shorts.

I really think the Steelers could have gone either way with Wood and Worilds, but I think the likelihood was much higher the way it panned out (not to mention it's bad form to let a guy keep collecting a paycheck when you outright threatened him to stay on the field or else). And if Worilds is injured for the bulk of the season in the manner Wood was? You let him walk. Middling performance? Let him walk. Worilds not signing was inevitable, but it is also a two way street - he has to produce this year. If he doesn't, then he can join Kruger on the Browns.

 

[Litos]

Whatever the "line in the sand" price was going to be with Worilds, I would have much rather they offered it to him and let the cards fall where they may rather than go down this path with the transition tag. If Worilds skips down thinking the grass is greener, so be it and I just keep Woodley and his hamstrings around another year or two. As previously mentioned it's not like Worilds health history is so much less of a risk than Woodley.

The way things are headed, there really isn't all that much different cap wise or cash wise in Worilds w/ his 1-year deal vs. Woodley with his inflated and previously renegotiated contract.

All that's different is the perceived injury risk. I think PFF actually had Woodley better snap for snap vs. Worilds over the past couple of seasons.

Yeap but Worilds is younger, better bet on the potential when the players are apparently similar in their production and health status.
Well, that's just my humble opinion

 

[Wingman]

I saw a while ago that the free agent market for outside line backers was likely to be high priced this year due to the shortage of players and the need exceeding the supply. On one news Venue Worilds was one of the top free agents. Woodley was signed elsewhere and like everyone has said has been a very poor investment for the last few years. The fact that he was picked up at all after his last few years says something about the market.

 

[ark steel]

I saw a while ago that the free agent market for outside line backers was likely to be high priced this year due to the shortage of players and the need exceeding the supply. On one news Venue Worilds was one of the top free agents. Woodley was signed elsewhere and like everyone has said has been a very poor investment for the last few years. The fact that he was picked up at all after his last few years says something about the market.

In the two years prior to his deal, Kruger had similar numbers to Worilds and got a pretty nice deal (i think that was before the cap increase, too). I expect Worilds wants something similar. Kruger played a year without the supporting cast he had at the Ravens (wasnt it suggs?) and you can see his drop-off. Worilds supporting cast last year wasn't stellar. Teams weren't focusing on Jones on the other side giving Worilds free reign.

As Vader or Tape said on the previous board incarnation, you might think that GM's would see Kruger after the deal and tone down the $$ some, but we all know that doesn't seem to happen a lot.

 

[xjx]

The Deacon hit this one correctly. WOrilds didn't do much till about half way through the season, and now he gets big bucks?

Let him walk after the season is over. One of these young guys will pan out, or we can still get a guy from the draft or a free agent.

I thought Worilds was over rated when we drafted him. He hasn't been outstanding, just adequate. Big bucks for that? No thanks.

 

[deljzc]

The problem is Worilds IS getting big bucks. $9.75 million to be exact.

With the way the cap is set up now, with the ability to "roll over" unused cap space, that $9.75 million cap usage is not just a potentially 2014 discussion. A long term deal that Worilds fails to live up to (i.e. release early in the deal) spreads guaranteed dollars out from 2014 to 2017. It's really not much different in terms of salary cap or cash allocation.

All the transition tag does is increase the money, what he asks for at the table to get rid of the tag, and what we might have to do in 2015 to keep him (possible franchise tag at $11.5 million).

That's my biggest problem with the tag. It increased his value. The argument you're not "sure" about Worilds long term should have stopped you from spending $9.75 million in the first place. Those are big time cap dollars that could have been used this year, next year or whenever because of the rollover ability.

 

[Xc944]

The problem is Worilds IS getting big bucks. $9.75 million to be exact.

With the way the cap is set up now, with the ability to "roll over" unused cap space, that $9.75 million cap usage is not just a potentially 2014 discussion. A long term deal that Worilds fails to live up to (i.e. release early in the deal) spreads guaranteed dollars out from 2014 to 2017. It's really not much different in terms of salary cap or cash allocation.

All the transition tag does is increase the money, what he asks for at the table to get rid of the tag, and what we might have to do in 2015 to keep him (possible franchise tag at $11.5 million).

That's my biggest problem with the tag. It increased his value. The argument you're not "sure" about Worilds long term should have stopped you from spending $9.75 million in the first place. Those are big time cap dollars that could have been used this year, next year or whenever because of the rollover ability.

It's just one of the many things that shows this team has been run poorly the last few years. This isn't the steelers of old

 

[TDX27]

Was he back out at OTA's yesterday? If not, we have a problem.

 

[t-man]

It's just one of the many things that shows this team has been run poorly the last few years. This isn't the steelers of old

When you say the Steelers of old, I assume you mean the team that let Chad Brown and Kevin Green head right out the ******* exit door?

Joe

 

[Idioteque]

The problem with "let him play and keep proving himself, then we'll see next year" is that, if he DOES prove himself, he'll be next to impossible to retain. If he DOESN'T prove himself, we're still bare in the cupboard.

I would have let him walk. Cannot believe we didn't draft a single OLB. What's the plan for 2015? Either pay Worilds a massive, unearned contract or roll with Jarvis and a rookie? Maybe we make a run at Kroy Biermann next offseason. He's no sack artist (16.5 in 5+ seasons) but he gets into the backfield. He's a quick, tough, versatile guy with experience at 43 DE and 34 OLB. Played just about every snap in Mike Nolan's defense AND special teams. He's extremely athletic and has been used in a spy role when facing Vick, Newton, and RG3. He's even played safety in short bursts. For a non-sacker, he looks like a prototypical LOLB. His last contract, signed in 2012, was manageable (3yr/$9M) and the dude only has four sacks and an Achilles injury since signing it. He could probably had on a two-year deal for around $6-8M. Pair him with a good rush prospect and we could have this nasty taste washed out quickly.

 

[Omar10213245]

The problem with "let him play and keep proving himself, then we'll see next year" is that, if he DOES prove himself, he'll be next to impossible to retain. If he DOESN'T prove himself, we're still bare in the cupboard.

I would have let him walk. Cannot believe we didn't draft a single OLB. What's the plan for 2015? Either pay Worilds a massive, unearned contract or roll with Jarvis and a rookie? Maybe we make a run at Kroy Biermann next offseason. He's no sack artist (16.5 in 5+ seasons) but he gets into the backfield. He's a quick, tough, versatile guy with experience at 43 DE and 34 OLB. Played just about every snap in Mike Nolan's defense AND special teams. He's extremely athletic and has been used in a spy role when facing Vick, Newton, and RG3. He's even played safety in short bursts. For a non-sacker, he looks like a prototypical LOLB. His last contract, signed in 2012, was manageable (3yr/$9M) and the dude only has four sacks and an Achilles injury since signing it. He could probably had on a two-year deal for around $6-8M. Pair him with a good rush prospect and we could have this nasty taste washed out quickly.

Meh...if a schmuck like Bierrman is the cream of the crop to pick from, color me unimpressed

 

[Punxsutawney]

Let him walk after the season is over. One of these young guys will pan out, or we can still get a guy from the draft or a free agent.

It depends on how well Worilds performs in 2014. If he has a strong 10+ sack season, they will have to do whatever they can to keep him.

They cannot afford another Keenan Lewis situation where they lose a quality young defender once he finally develops.

 

[scstillerfan]

It's frustrating to see the Steelers struggling to develop pass rushing OLBs, then watch the *Pats march out guys off the street that end up constantly getting in the backfield. There was always one OLB in the wings waiting to take over, i.e. Gildon, Porter, Harrison, and keep a rotation. I don't see it now. They will be lucky to have two real starters at this point. Unless Carter or Moats show something, it will be a need for at least one in the 2015 draft if not two.

So yeah, deserving or not, Worilds will get paid.

 

[Black & Gold Bleeder]

The problem is Worilds IS getting big bucks. $9.75 million to be exact.

With the way the cap is set up now, with the ability to "roll over" unused cap space, that $9.75 million cap usage is not just a potentially 2014 discussion. A long term deal that Worilds fails to live up to (i.e. release early in the deal) spreads guaranteed dollars out from 2014 to 2017. It's really not much different in terms of salary cap or cash allocation.

All the transition tag does is increase the money, what he asks for at the table to get rid of the tag, and what we might have to do in 2015 to keep him (possible franchise tag at $11.5 million).

That's my biggest problem with the tag. It increased his value. The argument you're not "sure" about Worilds long term should have stopped you from spending $9.75 million in the first place. Those are big time cap dollars that could have been used this year, next year or whenever because of the rollover ability.

I agree 100%... So a long term deal for worlids needs done now. And I don't see him with the incentive to make it.. Only think that could prompt something is injury chances etc.

 

[Litos]

if the guy gets 10+ sacks this season that franchise tag will be more than paid up and of course he'll be looking for big dollars for his next contract. Wether that's here or somewhere else is a completely different discussion
The guy took a risk not signing a long term deal (which I could bet my dog the Steelers offered him one), he'll work his butt off to get his big money contract and the Steelers will benefit from that during the season

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

The problem is Worilds IS getting big bucks. $9.75 million to be exact.

With the way the cap is set up now, with the ability to "roll over" unused cap space, that $9.75 million cap usage is not just a potentially 2014 discussion. A long term deal that Worilds fails to live up to (i.e. release early in the deal) spreads guaranteed dollars out from 2014 to 2017. It's really not much different in terms of salary cap or cash allocation.

All the transition tag does is increase the money, what he asks for at the table to get rid of the tag, and what we might have to do in 2015 to keep him (possible franchise tag at $11.5 million).

That's my biggest problem with the tag. It increased his value. The argument you're not "sure" about Worilds long term should have stopped you from spending $9.75 million in the first place. Those are big time cap dollars that could have been used this year, next year or whenever because of the rollover ability.

What the transition tag does is resets his contract status. As I said before this is a prove it year for Worilds. If he falters or rides the bench, he gets shipped off and the Steelers are out 9.75 mil but no more. If he has a 10+ sack season they'll gladly pay him.

I see your point about transitioning him in the first place but that's spilt milk. Fact is the Steelers had to make a move what with getting rid of Woodley early off a huge deal, and there's no way in hell Worilds' agent would convince him to ink a long term deal off of an 8 sack season. The transition tag allows the Steelers to see what they really have with Worilds starting a full 16 game season on the left, and Worilds to prove that the last half of 2013 wasn't a fluke. This really wouldn't have gone any other way.

 

[Wingman]

In addition to abilities that are offered by a player one also has to look at alternatives that are available to them. If there are fewer quality players available than the demand for that type of player the costs rise, just basic supply and demand. Some of this also might just be due to the drop off of the Penn State linebacker corps. It seems that it is no longer Linebacker U like it once was.

 

[Drink IRON City]

In addition to abilities that are offered by a player one also has to look at alternatives that are available to them. If there are fewer quality players available than the demand for that type of player the costs rise, just basic supply and demand. Some of this also might just be due to the drop off of the Penn State linebacker corps. It seems that it is no longer Linebacker U like it once was.

Very good point Wingman. PSU has had decline in recruiting as of late, bet it does translate to below the line talent.


Salute the nation

 

[Idioteque]

Meh...if a schmuck like Bierrman is the cream of the crop to pick from, color me unimpressed

He's not. Brian Orakpo, Justin Houston, and Greg Hardy are the cream of the crop, but both are franchise-type defenders who will be paid accordingly. Jerry Hughes was a bust in Indy but broke out last year; another 10-sack season and he's in Orakpoland. Akeem Ayers may break out this year and pull a huge deal himself.

So to me, the names to watch are Biermann and Adrian Clayborn. Clayborn has had a promising, if not overly impressive, start to his career, but hasn't really grown in the two years since. He could be had.

 

[dobre shunka]

When is paying a guy $10m to "prove it" ever a good idea? Isn't that exactly the reason why rookie compensation was radically adjusted downward in the last CBA? That was the one thing abouthe last CBA that was universally agreed upon. Right?