Smizik sounds like he read
our critique of Colbert
Bob Smizik is still one of our favorite Pittsburgh writers.
Looks like he's not a terribly big fan of us.
We'll say this: We like his writing better than Bouchette's. Bouchette is a big-time insider with scoops, no question. His writing, at times (such as his weekly chat, which we otherwise like and link on this site), can be overly wry, or snarky, or something.
Smizik tells it straightforward, and that style is appreciated.
We're probably giving ourselves way too much credit in suggesting he could be referring to us when he writes, on Wednesday, Oct. 15, "Leave it to some Steelers fans -- a small faction that believes anything short of a Super Bowl appearance is failure -- to find something amiss in this near-perfect season. And they call the media negative."
This sentence seems to describe our post from a few weeks ago on Kevin Colbert's draft record, so we'll just assume for our own ego that Smizik is referring to 6thring.com.
(Quick side note: We have no illusions we're a big-time player in the Steelers media world, nor even in the blogger world -- yet. Like Smizik, we work as hard as we can, to provide the most relevant and well-thought-out Steelers commentary and coverage that we can. We're working hard to get every click that we can. Thankfully, a few folks out there appreciate us, and we can't thank them enough.)
OK. Let's start first with the Smizik quote above.
He cites fans who believe anything short of the Super Bowl is "failure."
We've never said that here. But this is what's important: We're fans. Smizik may be a fan too (we don't know), but he is an objective writer. It is our job to root for the team. It is his job to objectively chronicle it.
Would Smizik prefer that fans had low standards? That we just sit around and say, "You know what, we've got the game's best QB, but we shouldn't care about winning the Super Bowl, that'll happen when we've got another Mark Malone back there; another loss to Jacksonville is OK."
Of course not.
So Smizik's implication that there is something wrong with fans wanting a Super Bowl is off-base.
Second: He says it's the fans who are finding "something amiss" in this "near-perfect season."
This is the most disappointing phrase in his article. Perhaps it was mentioned out of embarrassment. For it is Smizik himself who irrationally jumped all over the team after the loss in Philadelphia, and strongly questioned whether Mike Tomlin and the same assistants who won a Super Bowl were capable of adequate coaching. This site, on the other hand, heaped what we believe is much-deserved praise on Tomlin early in the season, calling him possibly the team MVP.
But more. Smizik goes on to say: "The focus of the negativism is on Colbert's failure to add significant talent in the late rounds of the draft."
That wasn't the thrust of the point here. It is a valid point. But not the thrust of our point.
We cited, specifically, second- and third-round picks who have flopped (there have been many, especially this year), and, in regards to Troy Polamalu, Kendrell Bell, Ricardo Colclough and Santonio Holmes, trading up for these players (however good they were) and costing the team third-round picks who might have been good. Nobody expects Super Bowl teams to be built in the 5th and 6th rounds. By the same token, no one should trade up in the 2nd to get Colclough, a year later take McFadden in the 2nd, and for years later, both of them sitting behind lower-drafted cornerbacks.
More Smizik: "What Colbert has done is select exceptionally well in the first round, which is, of course, the most important place to do well."
Here's what we said about Colbert and the first round: "No question, Colbert has pulled off arguably the greatest long-term spree of first-round picks in Steelers history. ... Colbert has routinely chosen near the back of the pack, and outdone everyone else."
So we're all in agreement there.
In a strange bit of evidence, Smizik cites some of Colbert's late-round picks. It's unclear why he's citing them. Does Smizik truly think Chukky Okobi, Rodney Bailey and Rian Wallace were good picks?
Smizik says much of the draft day two criticism is over special teams. This wasn't our beef. Our view on special teams is that they are strange animals, that they seem to do well on already good teams, and seem to perform poorly on already poor teams. In 2005, for instance, the Steelers' special teams were excellent. In 2006, just terrible, mostly the same guys.
So we agree with Smizik that this is no indictment of Colbert.
Finally, this is where Smizik loses the debate -- a debate perhaps enabled by folks like us, but created by Bob himself: "What the critics are really missing is what Colbert and his staff have done on the 'third day' of the draft. By that we mean the players signed after the draft. The Steelers have been extremely successful in finding quality players."
This is entirely off-base. As we stated, if Colbert truly believed in those undrafted free agents, he would've drafted THEM, and not guys like Eric Taylor and Drew Caylor.
He had such a good eye for James Harrison's talent that the team cut Harrison a bunch of times before letting him play.
This is the truth that Smizik is dodging: First round picks are generally not complicated. Neither are the undrafted free agents. With the first-rounders, everyone knows about them. The whole world knew about Ben Roethlisberger. Colbert didn't "discover" Roethlisberger. Bill Cowher knew about him. Cowher no doubt spoke with Ben before the draft and spoke with a bunch of other guys the Steelers might have taken. To credit Colbert extensively for first-round picks is probably going too far. It may be the head coach making those calls. Colbert might've preferred Shawn Andrews over Roethlisberger. Or maybe Cowher preferred Andrews. We don't know. We can also be certain that, while GMs might target a guy as a possible undrafted FA, basically if they truly think he can start in the NFL, they'll draft him, and in collecting UFAs they're basically just relying on their field scouts.
How can Smizik not be alarmed by picks like Matt Spaeth -- take another TE who can't block, who can barely get a pass his way either -- or Willie Reid, a hopeless NFL player, or Bruce Davis, who might be usable but seems overmatched now, or Anthony Smith, who talks a far bigger game than he plays? Those are still early enough picks where starters can be found, and Smizik knows this. Or how about complete duds like Orien Harris, Omar Jacobs, Cameron Stephenson, Charles Davis, Fred Gibson and Ryan McBean, guys taken at draft levels that aren't terribly promising, but where decent contributions can be made, and yet these guys couldn't get near an NFL roster?
Perhaps Smizik would honestly agree with us on this point: A GM is most needed in the second- through fifth-round picks. Those guys tend to be not particularly well known, but better than longshots.
And in the big picture, Colbert has undeniably been weak in the rounds that require his expertise, and incredibly lucky with the lottery tickets, which are probably attributable to scouts more than Colbert anyway.
If Smizik doesn't like hearing of Colbert's setbacks from us, perhaps he'll observe this from his colleague Gerry Dulac, who wrote on Monday, April 28, about Colbert's reaction to this year's draft, specifically, Limas Sweed slipping to Round 2: "That was unexpected," Steelers director of football operations Kevin Colbert said. "Like [Rashard] Mendenhall was unexpected at No. 1." Colbert is essentially gloating here that he stole first-round talent in the second round, and was the only guy smart enough to take Mendenhall. How can this comment be considered above criticism just because the team won a bunch of games in 2004 and 2005?
Entering 2008, this was a decent playoff team needing a couple more good players to win it all. How can Smizik possibly defend this 2008 draft? Even Smizik said a few weeks ago (basically) that Mendenhall was a bad pick (a point we did NOT share at the time, but have to believe Mendenhall might not be physically capable of playing in the NFL and thus would be a colossal bust.) Obviously there is zero contribution from the 2008 draft to what looks like a possible Super Bowl run. But consider what Colbert missed: Matt Forte has looked great as the Bears' running back. Chris Johnson has gained a bunch of yards for Tennessee.
Every draft is important. The 2008 one might -- might -- be the difference between a re-run of 2007, or our pride and joy, the 6th ring of the NFL's greatest franchise. We said it before, and we'll say it again and again: If you don't win the Super Bowl, you don't have enough good players. Have Woodley, Timmons, Roethlisberger, Holmes and maybe a few others emerged so much that the team does have enough good players?
We just don't know yet. We do know it would be easier with some quality rookies.
Let's be fully clear: We like Colbert. We want him to succeed. We hold him to high standards because we have very high standards for this team. And we're not afraid to call someone out.
Were we to make a boneheaded mistake on this site, we would expect the criticism. The type of OK-to-rest-on-your-laurels treatment Smizik is giving Colbert is woefully counterproductive in the long run. It would be like Bob's bosses saying, "You're a great columnist, with a long-term record of success, and so it's OK if John Harris and not you gets the scoop that the Steelers are going to draft Timmons."
Aren't Smizik, and his readers, all better served when the bosses tell him, "You're doing a great job, we wouldn't trade you for other Pittsburgh writers, but you've got to do better. Give us a scoop. Find out something about this team. Tell us something neither Bouchette nor Prisuta nor Harris nor Starkey nor Savran knows. Impress your readers. Take it to the highest level"?
That's all we're asking of Kevin Colbert.