In another blatant attempt to fan the flames of the so called feud between Big Ben and Hines Ward, the Post Gazette's very own instigator, Ed Bouchette, ponders aloud the impact of losing Plaxico Burress. Let me paraphrase Ed's underlying message...the Giants are in the Superbowl and the Steelers are sitting at home for one reason - the free agency loss of Burress. Yeah, right. You all remember Ed Bouchette, he's the guy that fueled the great Anthony Smith "guarantee" controversy.
I, like many, believe that we took a big step backwards with our receiving corps after losing Burress, and I think the addition of Ced Wilson was really not a good replacement since Wilson is more a Ward/El type slot guy, and not a big downfield weapon. However, we must first remember that we actually won the Superbowl without Burress, or any other tall wide out, for that matter. We must also remember that had we retained Burress, we probably would have lost Ward through free agency, we would have passed up Wilson, and we most likely would not have opted to trade up to draft Santonio Holmes.
Let me further complicate the debate, by throwing another what-if at you. Let's say the team breaks open Dan Rooney's pigg bank and manages to extend the contracts of BOTH Burress and Randle El in the summer of 2004, then opts to let Ward move on after 2005. The team then decides to draft Holmes to fill the loss of Ward in 2006. This leaves you with a corps that looks like this: Burress, Holmes, Randle El, and Nate Washington. This quartet would seem pretty dangerous, although it would lack the sure handed clutch guy.
I think this debate will rage on throughout the summer, or at least until the Pirates throw out the first pitch. Then the Post Gazette will have a new target to overly scrutinize.
like any good journalist, Bouchette asks us to ask ourselves "what if???"