Plenty of key Kevin Colbert quotes about Steelers besides the Ben Roethlisberger talk
Feb. 19—When I read Kevin Colbert's quote on Wednesday about the status of quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's future, my antenna went up.
"As we sit here today, Ben is a member of the Pittsburgh Steelers."
Well. That came off as, um, non-committal, to say the least.
But when I saw the video and heard the Pittsburgh Steelers GM's voice, it sounded more like a reminder Roethlisberger hadn't been cut. Yet.
Or maybe it was a heads up to Roethlisberger and his representatives that the notion of moving on from No. 7 isn't an entirely remote concept for Steelers brass.
Either way, the quarterback's situation is all anyone wanted to talk about Thursday. And I understand why. But now that we've had a day to digest that topic, let's get to a few other important issues that Colbert addressed in a little post we'll call, "Everything But Ben."
------
11-and-Oh, no!
Upon further review, I wasn't the only one seeing storm clouds on the horizon when things were starting to slide despite the Steelers' 11-0 start. Colbert felt that way, too.
"To come out of the gates as good as we did and hit that 11-0 mark, only to fall in the first round of the playoffs, it was very disappointing. We need to be judged on how we finish the season and not about how we did during the season. Even when we were at the 11-0 mark, I never really had a comfort level because I knew we would judge ourselves — and would be judged accordingly from the outside — about how we did in the playoffs."
I think I'm just going to fire up the time machine and bring this quote back with me to early December after the Steelers had barely won the "Covid Bowl" against the Baltimore Ravens, and lost at home to Washington.
I got a lot of emails and tweets saying, "Don't you think you are being too hard on them? This is just a lull!"
Sounds like Colbert was pretty sure the "lull" was going to last awhile, too.
------
Run game rant
Colbert was unhappy with his team's 32nd-ranked run game on offense at just 84.4 yards per game. And rightfully so.
"It is a collective effort. You can't say the runners weren't good enough. Or the quarterbacks weren't good enough. Or the line wasn't good enough. To put out the kind of running game we did, no one was good enough. And again, that is a collective effort. We need to be better quite honestly ... we need to finish. And I think having a strong running game helps teams finish in that time of year."
I get what Colbert was saying. And I agree 100%. I just would've preferred he phrase it differently.
Because you can say the runners weren't good enough. You can say the quarterbacks weren't good enough. You can say the line wasn't good enough. And that's why in the end it was, indeed, a "collective" failure.
And I would've rather heard Colbert say it exactly that way.
In the end, he and I are saying the same thing. But in my opinion, the constant effort from the coaching staff and front office to hold no one individually accountable and simply sluff off the shortcomings of the team to a "collective" disappointment is a big part of the problem.
Yeah, I get it. The Steelers, as a whole, failed. The running game, as a whole, failed. But if no one is made to feel personally responsible on an individual level — even a specific position group — there is less motivation to improve. Or less fear to fail again.
------
You sure about this one, Kev?
Colbert insists that the Steelers will continue their policy of refusing to renegotiate player contracts during the season.
"I think we will continue to do that. Once we start playing a season, our only focus should be the upcoming game with the ultimate goal of winning a season. When individual negotiations are going on during a season, we view that as a distraction and we will never let that be part of it as we try to put together a team and a philosophy as to getting the best team out there."
This policy has never bothered me all that much. And I'm not put off by the quote. I just think it's funny that Colbert — of all people — is worried about that as a "distraction."
This is the same guy who scoffed at the club's "Team Turmoil" tag a few years ago. He made it sound like Martavis Bryant's suspensions, and Le'Veon Bell's absence, and Antonio Brown's sideline outbursts and late arrivals, and the national anthem fiasco, and the rub between Roethlisberger and Todd Haley were all media creations.
But if Mike Hilton or Cameron Sutton had gotten a mid-season extension instead of hitting free agency, that woulda been chaos? Really?
By the way, if Roethlisberger doesn't play this year and Rudolph starts and succeeds, check back with me on this. There's no way he's hitting free agency. They'll lock him up midseason for sure.
There's precedent for it, too. Remember Tommy Maddox? They broke a policy to extend his contract ahead of the 2004 season before it was due to be reconfigured. They'll do it again in a different way for Rudolph if necessary.
------
Tag! You're NOT it
Colbert was asked if there is any chance of using a "tag" on any of the club's free agents. Presumably, that means either a franchise tag or transition tag. Either way, Colbert says, don't hold your breath.
"It's doubtful that we will be able to use a tag. Again, when we say we don't know what the cap is, what we try to do is prepare for the worst situation."
That "worst situation" is now about $180 million per team. And, likely, the number won't be much more than that. So, this news from Colbert isn't a big surprise. But given the knee injury to Bud Dupree and some recent scuttlebutt regarding JuJu Smith-Schuster, there had been growing questions about Colbert perhaps tagging one of those two players.
But it doesn't sound like that's going to happen. Nor should it. Dupree would make $18.9 million on a tag. Smith-Schuster could get between $15.8 million and $16.4 million.
------
Feeling a draft
Here is one final newsworthy nugget from Colbert about the draft. Specifically, about the offensive line.
"The draft itself, it is stronger at the tackle position than it is at the interior. Center and guard, traditionally, are not a very strong group. The tackles are unusually deep this year. I think we can add players through the draft. Hopefully, we will be able to do some type of business in free agency."
Translation? Look for a center to be signed in free agency to replace Maurkice Pouncey. And look for a tackle to be drafted in the first round.
Or, if the tackle depth really is that deep, maybe the Steelers will be tempted to wait until the second round to select a player at that position (as they have frequently done with wide receivers) and draft a running back, cornerback or — dare I say it — a quart....
Nah. I'll save that thought for a column down the line. After all, "as we sit here today" the Steelers still have a clear-cut starter at the position.
Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at tbenz@triblive.com or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.
