Jump to content

Smith's thoughts on 'starters'


Geneaut
 Share

Recommended Posts

I see a bunch of posts saying 'PlayerX should be the starter instead of PlayerZ'. On our team the term 'starter' doesn't mean much.

From a recent interview with Smitty:

“I think the naming of starters in our scheme, offensively and defensively, depends on what personnel groups they run out there. When you say who is the starter the guy that plays the first snap of the game, that’s going to all be based on what personnel grouping (offensive coordinator) Coach (Mike) Mularkey decides and what personnel grouping (offensive coordinator) Coach (Bruce) Arians decides up in Pittsburgh this week. You’ve got to list somebody as a starter and that’s something that we will do when the season starts. Really, we’re going to have, in our mind based on the different personnel grouping, we’re going to have 14 or 15 guys that we consider starters on our team. I think it’s very important that everybody understands that they are all starters and they’re all going to be contributing. That it’s not just the first 11 guys that go out there on the field.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very clever way for him to demote guys gracefully.

Not a bad idea, actually.

He does have a point though ... what if the Steelers decided to start the game with a 4WR set. Would all our CBs be considered 'starters' for that game? I know Smitty has said in the past he considers his #3CB a starter because he sees the field for so many snaps in the course of a game, but the #4 guy usually doesn't take many snaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bad idea, actually.

He does have a point though ... what if the Steelers decided to start the game with a 4WR set. Would all our CBs be considered 'starters' for that game? I know Smitty has said in the past he considers his #3CB a starter because he sees the field for so many snaps in the course of a game, but the #4 guy usually doesn't take many snaps.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I still think that is what he is doing.

The idea of who is on the field on the first play versus who is listed as a "starter" are two different things.

The team can lists 3 WRs as starters if they want to, then come out and run double TEs on the first play.

In reality, being listed as a "starter" is very important for a player, and in many cases it actually affects their money.

Mike Smith just doesn't let these things play out in the press, which is very smart.

Example - Michael Jenkins was only listed as a starter in 9 games last year, but only stat geeks like me know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Smitty's remarks should be taken at face value. I don't think there's any "read between the lines" message.

Well, I think the term 'starter' may mean different things, so sometimes you have to take it in context of what specific scenario he's addressing or who he's talking to.

And we as fans toss the term around like its generic as well.

However, I think Smitty usually says what he means, and means what he says. Injuries are usually the only thing I see him try to spin in any fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a face value statement, we have many different personnel packages and if who ever is starting is a guy that plays on the first snap of the game that could change game by game. Not really hard to understand and no different motives here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I still think that is what he is doing.

The idea of who is on the field on the first play versus who is listed as a "starter" are two different things.

The team can lists 3 WRs as starters if they want to, then come out and run double TEs on the first play.

In reality, being listed as a "starter" is very important for a player, and in many cases it actually affects their money.

Mike Smith just doesn't let these things play out in the press, which is very smart.

Example - Michael Jenkins was only listed as a starter in 9 games last year, but only stat geeks like me know that.

Actually, who is on the field on the first play is who is listed as the starter. Falcons started in 2TE sets a few times last year, it's why Jenks wasn't listed as starter those games. [ and the one game he actually missed]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Smitty's remarks should be taken at face value. I don't think there's any "read between the lines" message.

Absolutely correct as I see it. Mike WOODSON is a guy

who believed in starters for 4 quarters and in the 4th

quarter they usually were done. Mike Smith really is a

a rotation guy, he believes in the necessity of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smitty says it is a rotation.

All this other bs is being made up by people

who have to have a starter label and back up

label firmly attached to everybody. Demotions,

money, etc. don't have much to do with it. The

reason for it is to win football games with fresh

players playing with speed and urgency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...