This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I wanted the Steelers to take Sorsby in the supplemental draft. But I doubt they would have and instead will be floating in the our QB isn’t good enough to win a championship land. Also wanted them to sign Willis. They seem very reluctant to take the kind of risks you need to in order of finding a top 10 QB. Allar has potential with all the physical traits but he’s still a developmental QB who had bad coaching at PSU so maybe there is a 25% chance it all comes together. That is just not enough risks to take at a position like that. And they refuse to be bad enough to get a top 5 pick where you can land a great prospect. Which you can’t get to trading up if you start at pick 20. So they will end up drafting the 4th best QB in a strong QB class who generally has a major flaw.
Kalshi just raised at $40b valuation or half of CME. I wouldn’t invest because gambling has two bad business traits - there are a lot of firms competing and my vote in our Democracy would be to regulate it out of existence.
I don't think the Steelers would have taken Sorsby, and I don't understand why you think he would be the answer at QB. If he were some superstar, maybe, but he was projected as a third round pick if he had decided to enter the draft this year, which puts him in the same league as Allar and Mason Rudolph. The problem I have with Willis is that the guy made 3 starts in 2 years and everyone started acting like he had potential that he hadn't shown at all when he was in Tennessee. It's almost as like he had such a reputation for being bad that when he came in and wasn't terrible everyone was impressed and subsequently overrated him.
Cleveland, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Carolina, Arizona, both New York teams, Tennessee, and until recently, Detroit and Buffalo have all been consistently terrible long enough to draft several top prospects, with nothing to show for it. Even New England, who rebounded relatively quickly after the Brady era, took two tries to get it right. The last time, technically speaking, that a team sucked and drafted a top QB prospect who won a Super Bowl for them was, well, the Steelers, when they won with Roethlisberger in 2009. If you loosen this definition a bit you can bump it up a few years to 2012, though Eli Manning was technically acquired via trade. Going back to the Super Bowl winners since then:
If you include Super Bowl losers than you're going to find a lot more guys from the top of the draft, but that's besides the point. Teams can easily acquire their starter via trade, free agency, through lower round selections, or through trading up. While we're here, let's look at QBs drafted in the top 10 during that period, excluding the past couple years:
Of the 21 guys on this list, only 5 (Goff, Luck, Allen, Burrow, and Herbert) would be obvious improvements over what the Steelers had the past several years. Tannehill and Mayfield are maybes. Anyone else would be a bust in Pittsburgh. I can only imagine what Steelers fans would say if we got a top pick and spent it on a guy like Tua or Zach Wilson. But the best examples for comparison are the Bengals and Chargers. Bengals first. It's a really easy comparison to make since they play in the same division. In the six years since Burrow has been in the league, the Steelers have finished ahead of the Bengals 4 times while the Bengals have bested the Steelers only twice. We can put an asterisk next to 2020 since Burrow was a rookie, but even in the contemporary era of complaining about the Steelers it's still a 3–2 advantage. And the Steelers have done better lately as well, with Cincy having missed the playoffs for three seasons and counting. This is not a team that is in a better position than the Steelers.
The Chargers, though, are an even better comparison, because they're an example of a similarly situated team that did absolutely everything people said the Steelers should have been doing over that period. They were a team that was good on paper but managed to disappoint with a lot of flukey close losses, and they unepectedly ended up with a low draft pick. With Rivers exiting, they spent it on a QB who lived up to the hype, and eventually dumped their coach as well. They have a good young QB, a decent core, and a hip young offensive-minded coach. They proceed to make the playoffs three out of the next six seasons, losing in the first round every time. Two of those appearances come after firing the hip young coach and replacing him with an old guy who believes in team defense and running the ball. It's not too hard to imagine an alternate universe where the Chargers have a decent 2019 and, following Ben's injury and the loss of the killer Bs, the team finishes 5–11 and management decides that with a guy like Herbert available it's time for a rebuild. Tomlin is let go, Ben throws a tantrum and gets sold for scrap (he is about the same age as Rivers), and they hire an "innovative" wunderkind as head coach. In 2020, 7–9 is an improvement, 9–8 in 2021 is even better, and in 2022 they actually have a winning season and make the playoffs, and though they lose in the first round, they're improving, and this is what progress looks like. Until they have another 5 win season the following year and they hire a Tomlin clone to get the team back on track an consistently have 10 or 11 win seasons and early playoff exits. And everyone talks about how they really righted the ship.
This is what pisses me off about the constant bitching about the Steelers of the past 5 or 6 years. Yes, is disappointing when you make the playoffs 5 out of 6 years and get blown out in the first round every time. But it's better when making the playoffs at all is considered an improvement.
IMO your data on where QB are drafted is dated. The last 5-8 years of drafts we’ve seen many more QB draft classes clustered with picks 1,2,3 QB if teams like them. And picks 8-20 be true second tier prospects. Good prospects are getting pushed higher up the board. Mahomes, Allen, Ben types aren’t going pick 10 anymore.
Willis is an example of a QB that needed time to develop. His traits are absolutely elite - rocket arm, 4.4 ‘40, Motte poster level Wonderlich score and IQ definitely matters at the QB position. Some reason he only played at Liberty University. Willis was bad in the NFL because he played as a rookie at Liberty which is a giant competition jump.
Elite Traits + 4 years development + 4 good NFL games is 100% an interesting background to bet on. And for the same money as Rodgers.
Steelers have 0% probability of getting a top 3 pick and a shot at a clean QB prospect.
Sorsby had a good shot at going first round this year and most draft prognosticators have him as a top 15 pick without the gambling next year. Not a third round guy. Allar with slightly worse arm, better tape, and far better legs.
I don’t bitch about the Steelers. A lot is well run. It’s just they need to take bigger variance risks to find a QB.
If you need a top 3 pick to land a championship caliber quarterback then I wouldn't worry about drafting one at all, because the only teams capable of being that bad aren't winning a championship any time soon. The Steelers haven't had fewer than 5 wins since Chuck Noll's inaugural season, and they're too competent to get that bad again organically. Deliberately tanking, as some people have suggested, would require them to tear the team down to the studs, at which point they'd get their quarterback but still need to find the rest of the team.
Willis has always looked good on paper, but his NFL sample size is too limited to spend any serious money on him. Sure, he's getting the same money as Rodgers, but Rodgers is a known quantity on a one year deal, not a project on a 3 year deal (though I believe only one is guaranteed). If the Steelers think they can compete this year (and they're better on paper than last year, when they won the division), then they weren't going to spend starter money on a dice roll who was only going to ride the bench if Rodgers came back. If they want to take that chance they have two guys on the roster who can do it for peanuts. The Dolphins are in the middle of a rebuild and can afford to take a chance like that. You need to keep in mind that guys like Mason Rudolph and Mike White look good in small sample sizes. Hell, Duck Hodges briefly looked like a competent game manager. Then the opposition gets enough film on the guy and realize how limited his bag of tricks is and put together a defensive strategy that he's incapable of responding to. Not saying that's Willis, but we simply don't know yet.
Mitch Trubisky, Justin Fields, and Kenny Pickett were all high variance risks, they just weren't risky because the team had little to lose. And when they didn't work out people still bitched about it. Paying one of these guys 22 million a year would up the risk factor but wouldn't make them smarter. Letting Allar, Howard, and Rudolph would have been a high variance risk, and one they would have been willing to take if Rodgers didn't come back, but there's no point in criticizing the Rodgers deal because any of these guys could still theoretically be the starter if they do well in camp and Rodgers loses it.
IMO Willis 100% boosted the Steelers Super Bowl chances this year. The floor is lower but his ceiling is much higher than Rodgers at this point.
It’s nice winning 10 games a year, but you want championships and playoff victories. You do need to take risks to win big or some how get lucky and find Brady. The Rams have had bad years and Super Bowls. Same with the Eagles.
Some times you do need to bet on a 4 game sample size. The guy whose won MVP’s and are not on AARP are not available in free agency.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link