Steelers select Dri Archer in Round 3

[Wingman]

We can sure tell it is the off season. Very interesting discussions so far lots of different points and now we are talking about physics on the board. I hope the kid is successful, but I would not be surprised if he hits injured reserve after the ravens game.

 

[Stryker]

Perhaps the reason a small player hasn't made it before is because they were playing in an era where hard tackles and leading with the helmet were allowed. Now in todays kindler, gentler flag footballesque NFL, these players will now have room to shine?

 

[Black & Gold Bleeder]

No it doesn't. I guarantee you Archer would rather be hit by another 173 lb player than by a 230 lb player.

I think some of you fail science class and probably watch no football. It's like saying a 4.8 guy can run just as fast as a 4.2 guy.

**** off vader.. wasn't talking to you... what I said was in response to him saying 170 lb guys bounce instead of absorbing a hit.. Go find someone else to start with.

 

[Vader]

**** off vader.. wasn't talking to you... what I said was in response to him saying 170 lb guys bounce instead of absorbing a hit.. Go find someone else to start with.

Go wipe you mangina off. If you were talking to someone else you should use the quotes. HTF I'm I suppose to know that?

 

[Black & Gold Bleeder]

cause your a dumbass looking for a fight,,, all the time.. anything to feel better somehow right?

 

[Vader]

cause your a dumbass looking for a fight,,, all the time.. anything to feel better somehow right?

haha what a ******* joke. Go clean you mangina off... I'm sure that's make you feel better right?

 

[Black & Gold Bleeder]

What I am saying is that when a bigger guy hits a smaller one, the smaller guy tends to bounce off instead of fully absorb the blow. Plus he is very agile and hard to get a clean shot on. If you are the tackler obviously you want to be bigger. Someone used to example of Bettis. What happens to smaller guys trying to tackle big RBs? They get trucked (aka willie gay) or they just kinda bounce off and the RB goes through them.

As for smaller guys get injured easier, are there any stats to back this up or is it just little guy bias. I have seen no reports that say is you are <200pounds you have a 50% more chance of injury, if you are between 200-250 you have 35% more chance, and if you are 250+ then you only have a 15% chance of injury. Lineman get injured constantly and they are the biggest guys out there. Our healthiest position has probably been at WR who most say are "smurfs." Most injuries do not occur on clean hard hits. They come from awkward tackles (twisting turning), being gang tackled, rolled on, or concussed. RBs in general take a good pounding, but hopefully we are not running Archer up the middle 99% of the time.

Hey ,, genius. Heres the original post I was responding to.. I know it must be an important point for you to make ,,, about the guys flawed science etc.... so please by all means... don't let me and my mangina get in the way of your endorphin high.... Have at him..... I mean,,, it has to be pretty important point so you better get to trolling and tryin to make someone else feel bad so you can feel better..... Good luck.. Life must be pretty damn ******.

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

40 pages! Do I hear 50?

 

[CorpusDsteelers]

B&g vs Vader and Supe vs Idioteque maybe tag team special with a surprise guest?
We could have TAS as the ref and maybe coolie might need 2

 

[CorpusDsteelers]

Got your 60 raise you 5

 

[TMC]

As for smaller guys get injured easier, are there any stats to back this up or is it just little guy bias. I have seen no reports that say is you are <200pounds you have a 50% more chance of injury, if you are between 200-250 you have 35% more chance, and if you are 250+ then you only have a 15% chance of injury. Lineman get injured constantly and they are the biggest guys out there. Our healthiest position has probably been at WR who most say are "smurfs." Most injuries do not occur on clean hard hits. They come from awkward tackles (twisting turning), being gang tackled, rolled on, or concussed. RBs in general take a good pounding, but hopefully we are not running Archer up the middle 99% of the time.

There have not been any definitive studies, done, but Dr. Jene Bramel had an article titled "The Injury Prone Player: Perception vs Reality". In that article, she wrote;

To be certain, we can identify many objective reasons why a player who has a history of injury may be more prone to future injury. It’s reasonable to consider players in the following categories as more likely to suffer an injury.

A player with a smaller frame, more laxity in his joints than average, less flexibility in his tendons than average
A player with poorer strength, conditioning or less endurance than his competition
A player with below-average bone density or differences in the microscopic makeup of his connective tissue
A player with poor biomechanics or technique, especially when performing repetitive motions
A player with poorer reaction time or slower neuromuscular processing speed
A player more willing to take chances or put himself in a position to be injured
A player who has had repeated injuries to the same area (e.g. scar tissue, cartilage loss, overuse)
A player more willing to play through pain, affecting conditioning, flexibility, reaction time, etc.

The first line in her list of reasons is a player with a smaller frame. If size was not an indicator of a person's ability to take punishment (or give it out), why have weight classes in boxing? Shouldn't they all be able to deliver and absorb the same punishment? Yet, smaller fighters are rarely knockout artists while larger fighters knock out people all the time. You have a guy get too high in weight, out of his natural weight class, and often they get destroyed by bigger fighters. Why? Because size does matter. A larger person is more able to withstand the punishment.

Furthermore, there was a person who performed a study of all the players over 3 years that went on IR in the NFL. The leading position for injury was runningback. It was not even close compared to the other positions, the one position where guys are asked to run inside where they are subject to hits from defensive linemen and linebackers leads the league in players placed on IR. Furthermore, it is a position that does not have a glut of smaller players, like wide receiver. If injury was not the concern, why not place more at RB? There are plenty coming out of college every year.

The key, to me, is not solely height or weight, but BMI. They can be shorter as long as they have the meat on the bones and that means they have the frame to carry it. I also do not want some 6'3"-195 pound runningback because I do not think he can take the beating.

 

[keslerclan]

You continue to state that Archer is a more experienced route runner/receiver than other pure receivers in this draft and that simply is not true. Not at all. It is absolute rubbish. Archer played runingback. He lined up a large majority of the time in the backfield. If you watch full games, not highlights, but full games, he lined up as a receiver or slot player less than 10 times per game. If he lined up out wide, say 10 times per game, for his last three years of college football, say they played 13 games a season, that is 390 times in his career, because he did NOT do it in high school. Bryant started at receiver for Clemson last season. Tajh Boyd threw the football 413 times last year alone. So, Bryant lined up and ran routes 400+ times last season. He acted as a receiver 413 times. The season prior, I am sure while his catch numbers are lower, he lined up and ran routes. He did it two seasons ago. He did it all through high school and pop warner, because he is a receiver. OK, Tom, as we have very few times in the past, we shall agree to disagree on some of these points. It's all good w me. My point, although "experienced" was a poor choice of words w regard to his reps was just this: Surely, Archer lined up at slot fewer times than most pure receivers. He did however, run most all of the route tree fairly well for a guy who had not been considered a 'pure' WR. I didn't see anything in his game that looked like he couldn't translate to becoming a 'pure' slot guy. Bryant, on the other hand has been doing this his whole life. He doesn't look like he has. He, like most bigger receivers, runs lazy routes (sometimes), rounds off, looks stiff and (sometimes) looks like Mike Adams out there. His route tree is not much more substantial than Mike Evans's. I'm not saying he won't turn out to be a great WR. Maybe he doesn't need to be much better to be better than our other options? I'm just saying he should look much better than Archer running routes and in my view...he doesn't. Archer is NOT a better WR as I don't wish to be misquoted. He just runs better routes than a big WR who has been doing it his whole life and shouldn't.

You also forgive his fumbles and point at some of the most prolific fumblers in the history of the NFL to excuse it, because they made the HOF (in a distant era), then he should be fine too.
Wow, you got me here. No, my point was that MOST all RBs go through periods of fumbling at a higher rate (I thought I backed it up as well). I realize that KR guys have a higher rate of fumbles (muffs) attributed to their records AND that Archer was used in ways that no other running backs were. Despite this, the bulk of his work came in 2012 where he fumbled the least. Lower than most, in fact. I simply don't know enough to call him 'chronic'.

Not sure who called him an academic washout, but the one class he did not receive credit for would not have been an issue IF he had enough total credits to qualify. If you are on the razor's edge with credits and lose one, then get suspended, I would not think you are a Mensa candidate. Is your argument really that he failed to work hard enough in college? Okay, point taken. He is smart enough to handle the work, just won't do it. My understanding of this is that Archer was putting his athletics first, early on. He failed to complete a class. He was advised to re-take the class (which he did). What he didn't realize was that the re-take would not be counted. It never happened again.

So, we can all agree he lacks the size desired in the NFL. YESThe differences are, while I state he missed a full season of playing time for academics, you argue he was just too lazy to show up.Not exactly a typical situation. He isn't stupid and we have plenty of lazy players in the NFL. I don't think he will be one of them. While I argue he is not a polished route runner and lacks experience in that area, you point towards total catches (even though the majority are dumps out the backfield) as an indicator he is better than pure WRs. I digressed on the experience but would like to see the 'sample' of experience and proclivity of execution to be a validation of his potential rather than an indictment as to why he cannot be considered to be in the same class of skilled players. VERY FEW multi-sport or even multi-positional athletes are as successful at all equally. He looks like he could be. While I argue he fumbles too much, you point towards HOFs that also fumbled too much. Again, a small player playing multiple positions (without a lot of training) who also mans a position (KR) which lends itself to 'accomplice' fumbles (muffs) who did not fumble at a high rate during the most productive year of his tenure, does not give me enough information to decide if he is a chronic case.

Still do not see the positives. I see excuses. I see both positives and 'potential excuses' (though not thoroughly vetted)

And, the Steeler coaches state he is a RB first that will play various positionsIncluding slot receiver, not a slot receiver. If the plan was to get a pure slot WR, why not draft a guy that played WR ALL THE TIME. I agree...unless the guy who plays it all the time has peaked when a guy who does it part-time with little training for the position LOOKS like he hasn't scratched the surface. A guy you do not have to teach routes, nuances of the game, how to make body adjustments to the ball, and all the stuff he does not do. Like the stuff we now have to teach the guy drafted after him? Why not train them both?

But, continue to make excuses. Oddly enough, another similarity to Chris Rainey, because if I bring him up right now, people make excuses as to why he is not with the Steelers anymore.Was it because he was a smallish, fumble-prone, injury-prone excuse for a football player? I thought it was because he smacked his GF? He still managed to find a team, as did Reggie Dunn. They haven't done **** but get paid to stand around (which is more than the other 93-95% of former college players).

All I am asking is for you and some others to let the chips fall where they may for this kid before tearing his game down. We are all on record as saying he has a hard road ahead. He has his "positives and negatives" no doubt. I cannot believe I have found myself defending a kid before he has stepped on an NFL field. Free the Memphis 3! What? That already happened? Nevermind

 

[Supersteeler]

Some of you simply cannot, will not accept criticism of a Steeler.

Dude, I'm not even a huge fan of the NFL in general anymore so I could care less who you criticize. Doesn't even factor into the equation to me.

 

[Stryker]

There have not been any definitive studies, done, but Dr. Jene Bramel had an article titled "The Injury Prone Player: Perception vs Reality". In that article, she wrote;

To be certain, we can identify many objective reasons why a player who has a history of injury may be more prone to future injury. It’s reasonable to consider players in the following categories as more likely to suffer an injury.

A player with a smaller frame, more laxity in his joints than average, less flexibility in his tendons than average
A player with poorer strength, conditioning or less endurance than his competition
A player with below-average bone density or differences in the microscopic makeup of his connective tissue
A player with poor biomechanics or technique, especially when performing repetitive motions
A player with poorer reaction time or slower neuromuscular processing speed
A player more willing to take chances or put himself in a position to be injured
A player who has had repeated injuries to the same area (e.g. scar tissue, cartilage loss, overuse)
A player more willing to play through pain, affecting conditioning, flexibility, reaction time, etc.

The first line in her list of reasons is a player with a smaller frame. If size was not an indicator of a person's ability to take punishment (or give it out), why have weight classes in boxing? Shouldn't they all be able to deliver and absorb the same punishment? Yet, smaller fighters are rarely knockout artists while larger fighters knock out people all the time. You have a guy get too high in weight, out of his natural weight class, and often they get destroyed by bigger fighters. Why? Because size does matter. A larger person is more able to withstand the punishment.

Furthermore, there was a person who performed a study of all the players over 3 years that went on IR in the NFL. The leading position for injury was runningback. It was not even close compared to the other positions, the one position where guys are asked to run inside where they are subject to hits from defensive linemen and linebackers leads the league in players placed on IR. Furthermore, it is a position that does not have a glut of smaller players, like wide receiver. If injury was not the concern, why not place more at RB? There are plenty coming out of college every year.

The key, to me, is not solely height or weight, but BMI. They can be shorter as long as they have the meat on the bones and that means they have the frame to carry it. I also do not want some 6'3"-195 pound runningback because I do not think he can take the beating.

It's a good thing that his reaction time can balance out the negatives

The boxing analogy is flawed because the inverse is also true. Smaller, quicker fighters have less of a chance of being knocked out than their larger, slower counter parts.

However, I understand your argument and the validity for it. The science is logical and strong, I just can't back it. I don't want to be a part of the fan base rooting for failure, and if not openly rooting, gleaning some schadenfruede at being right ex post facto. I want ZERO part of the "I told you so's" if a Steeler player leaves the field with an injury. That of course, would be adding the highest insult to the injury for me.

I heard it last year with Jarvis' health concerns, this year we're jumping on a healthy slash player. Well JJ is still standing and Archer has yet to play a down. If and when Archer goes down, there will be no enjoyment from me. I will root hard for each and every player that risks their own personal health to the black and gold. If he succeeds, I will cheer him on. If he is injured, I hope it isn't serious, and I will wish him a speedy return.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Tape cornerbacks are a huge need in YOUR mind!
The front office disagrees with you because they took shanizer over two or three CB options. Then waited till the 5th to get one. They obviously know more about their players than you do.

CBS are hard to find you say. even if say the cat from mich st was drafted do you think he would start day one or even at all the whole year.

How many players ran a faster 40 time then archer did at the combine in the last 20 years?

I bet there are more starting CBs drafted after the 5th in the last 5 years drafted than players faster
than archer at all the combines ever conducted.

CB is not a need in your mind?

Ike Taylor - 34, likely in his last year
Cortez Allen - has never played 16 games. Will be a free agent next year.
William Gay
Isiah Green - free agent next year
Ross Ventrone - free agent next year
Antwone Blake - free agent next year
Brice McCain - free agent next year
Devin Smith - free agent next year

Do you consider that to be a position of strength?

OK, for sake of argument let's say Cortez has a breakout year and one of the other CBs on the roster does too. There's a good chance you can't keep them. Then what do you have at CB?

The Steelers are pinning their hopes on some late round picks and journeymen emerging as reliable NFL CBs. How has that plan been working so far?

The Steelers have gotten by in the past with mediocre secondaries because they've had a great pass rush and pass rush creates turnovers. Their pass rush sucks now and i'm not convinced it will be much better this season. I like the addition of Tuitt up front and Shazier will be a more effective blitzer than Foote but it still comes down to Worilds and Jarvis Jones as the main pass rushers and i'm not sold that they are more than average.

This draft was very weak for pass rushers, so the opportunity to increase turnovers was to upgrade the secondary with some playmakers.

Here are the steelers pathetic INT totals from the last few year.
2011 - 11
2012 - 10
2013 - 10

Yeah. CB is a huge need in my mind.

 

[TMC]

I am not going to go through and pull out all the comments to respond. And, quite honestly, I believe this will be my last post on Archer, likely ever. He is a small framed player. He is not a polished WR contrary to all the arguments. He has lined up in the slot. He has ran various routes. He rounds plenty of them, failing to show the speed and burst more experienced WRs have. Is he better at cornering than Bryant? I ******* hope so, the difference in the two is ~9 inches in length. The problem is, Archer does not show that explosion and speed on many routes. In various games, when running crossing routes, he allowed the DB to stay with him and often come across his face to bat passes down. This was not against NFL corners, not even against SEC/ACC/PAC/B10 corners, but some ****** school that Kent State plays on a regular basis. So, he struggled to get separation against your future baggar at Wal-Mart.

In addition, one of the biggest aspects that is rarely talked about with pure WRs is catch radius. Archer lacks the ability to make adjustments to the ball in the air. He can with his feet, by speeding and slowing so he gets his body in position, but he rarely goes up and high points passes. He also struggles on lower throws. He is a knees to shoulders guy (granted, he can catch them at his head before some *** clown points that out). He is not going to sky over anyone and damn sure is not going to use his hands to pull passes off the turf. He has some ugly drops. He has drops when DBs are closing. He does not catch well in traffic. He body catches. So, for all the WR stuff that is being spewed, he does not possess the traits that most collegiate WRs have coming out. His transition to the slot will be slow. His number of routes down the field, where he caught passes like a normal WR, would likely be less than 2 per game. Most of his receptions came as WR screens, dumps, and other shorter passes. His two deep receptions last season came on a play where the safety completely lost him allowing him over 10 yards in space and where another safety flashed in front, diving for an INT, and completely missed the football allowing him to body catch the ball and basically walk into the endzone.

As for his acclimation to WR, "Dri Archer said he's been strictly w/ the RB group so far w/ the Steelers." So, good thing he is being used in a lo of places.

As for his academics, he did enough to miss a full season. People were on Bryant pre-draft because he was suspended a bowl game because of academics. If Bryant is a knucklehead for missing one game due to academics, where does that put Archer?

Still does not make him any bigger. Still does not take away the fact that he had shoulder issues, an ankle injury (in 2012), a knee injury (in 2012) and then followed that up with a 2013 season where he battled an ankle injury to the SAME ankle.

He also fumbles. You point to the one season where he did not fumble often and carried a heavy workload. So, does that mean the other three seasons he was putting the ball on the turf at an alarming rate? Great, the one season that would be a statistical outlier is the season you think is the norm, when, in 3 of 4 seasons, he was a fumbler. Maybe we should shelve him for 3 seasons, not let him touch the football, that way, we get the one season where he won't fumble.

He still managed to find a team, as did Reggie Dunn. They haven't done **** but get paid to stand around

Oh, I see. Excuse me for having higher expectations for 3rd round picks. ****, can you get them to draft me? I can stand around with the best of them. If that is their plan, 8-8 may be the high water mark.

 

[keslerclan]

Well, I'm not sure how to respond to this topic anymore because the only alternate explanation to the evidence presented on both sides is...

Either our scouts/coaches and FO guys are complete idiots for NOT seeing the things you did/do OR you can see them better from your living room?

 

[bermudasteel]

I think they simply wanted value at the 3rd pick, and wasn't sure Archer gave them that at where he was selected.

I know I wasn't sure.

Mostly based on his small stature. And his last year of college being banged up which would point most people right back to his lack of size.

But yeah the NFL is changing perhaps he can survive long enough to make some plays.

I just would have preferred a few rounds lower in that experiment.

Wish for the best, and root for him to succeed.

But that doesn't change the my idea that they reached for a midget gadget player.

Dri fly fly

hopefully a OH MY

instead of a WHY

hi

Oakleaf rhymes - they make me smile...

 

[CorpusDsteelers]

CB is not a need in your mind?

Ike Taylor - 34, likely in his last year
Cortez Allen - has never played 16 games. Will be a free agent next year.
William Gay.
Isiah Green - free agent next year

Ross Ventrone - free agent next year
Antwone Blake - free agent next year
Brice McCain - free agent next year
Devin Smith - free agent next year

Do you consider that to be a position of strength?

OK, for sake of argument let's say Cortez has a breakout year and one of the other CBs on the roster does too. There's a good chance you can't keep them. Then what do you have at CB?

The Steelers are pinning their hopes on some late round picks and journeymen emerging as reliable NFL CBs. How has that plan been working so far?

The Steelers have gotten by in the past with mediocre secondaries because they've had a great pass rush and pass rush creates turnovers. Their pass rush sucks now and i'm not convinced it will be much better this season. I like the addition of Tuitt up front and Shazier will be a more effective blitzer than Foote but it still comes down to Worilds and Jarvis Jones as the main pass rushers and i'm not sold that they are more than average.

This draft was very weak for pass rushers, so the opportunity to increase turnovers was to upgrade the secondary with some playmakers.

Here are the steelers pathetic INT totals from the last few year.
2011 - 11
2012 - 10
2013 - 10

Yeah. CB is a huge need in my mind.

Again all in your mind!! who's to say that Revis or another great CB wants to come back home and told the GM I'll be there next year! Let me ply out my current contract. Again it's in your mind you have no clue what the future holds the Front Office obviously didn't feel we needed a CB! you do because you don't know the future. Tape take a chill pill you cannot predict the future.

What were we in total yards in pass d 2011 how about 2012 does ints determine wins and losses?

Does the fastest ILB (since Brian urlacker) not increase the pass rush thus forcing the QB to throw it sooner?

CB's are great but unless you get pressure to the QB WR's will find away to get open! Your still thinking foote and Hope are there!
It's been replaced by Mitchell (helps the cbs in zone/blitz coverage) and Shanizer by far faster and more likely to force turnovers.

This is not 2013 or 2012 or 2011 old and slow are gone.
Dwell in the past if you must I'm looking forward to fast and hard like rabbits *******!!!

I like how you dismiss gay by the way

 

[antdrewjosh]

I like how you dismiss gay by the way

Who was our best CB last year. Not by default either he was great last year. But of course all the naysayers who called the coaching staff idiots for bringing him back wont admit that.

 

[jitter77]

There have not been any definitive studies, done, but Dr. Jene Bramel had an article titled "The Injury Prone Player: Perception vs Reality". In that article, she wrote;



The first line in her list of reasons is a player with a smaller frame. If size was not an indicator of a person's ability to take punishment (or give it out), why have weight classes in boxing? Shouldn't they all be able to deliver and absorb the same punishment? Yet, smaller fighters are rarely knockout artists while larger fighters knock out people all the time. You have a guy get too high in weight, out of his natural weight class, and often they get destroyed by bigger fighters. Why? Because size does matter. A larger person is more able to withstand the punishment.

Furthermore, there was a person who performed a study of all the players over 3 years that went on IR in the NFL. The leading position for injury was runningback. It was not even close compared to the other positions, the one position where guys are asked to run inside where they are subject to hits from defensive linemen and linebackers leads the league in players placed on IR. Furthermore, it is a position that does not have a glut of smaller players, like wide receiver. If injury was not the concern, why not place more at RB? There are plenty coming out of college every year.

The key, to me, is not solely height or weight, but BMI. They can be shorter as long as they have the meat on the bones and that means they have the frame to carry it. I also do not want some 6'3"-195 pound runningback because I do not think he can take the beating.

I think that the study on RBs needs to be more detailed or refined a bit. They need to look at the type of injury. Usually if you go on IR its to to a blown knee, broken leg or something like that. If your leg gets rolled on or fallen into by a lineman I dont think it matters if your 250 or 150 your knee or leg will pop. Also RBs get tackled in the most traffic so there is a greater chance of bodies rolling around falling on you vs a WR who generally gets tackled in the open. To be a good RB I think the most important things are a low center of gravity, vision, and you need to be strong to power through all the arms/legs in your way. WRs tend to run more upright with longer strides which is definitely not ideal to be plowing through the line. I think a WR as a RB would go down easier, but I still question the injury aspect.

Another flaw is RBs are getting tackled 20+ times a game so their chance of injury goes up just by the fact they are getting taken down so much. A great game by a receiver would be 10 catches which is about half what a starting RB would get tackled. I would like to see a break down of touches per IR for WR and RB. I bet the gap would be closed a lot. It would be difficult to a breakdown of other positions, and even WR vs RB is flawed because of where the tackles are taking place. Im not saying archer is going to be a star RB, I just argue that I dont think his size will effect his injury status. I know he has a injury history, but so do many many other players.

 

[steel dino]

Who was our best CB last year. Not by default either he was great last year. But of course all the naysayers who called the coaching staff idiots for bringing him back wont admit that.

It is fairly obvious to me, that the Steelers consider the best way to defend the pass is to apply pressure on the QB...

Especially after the last two drafts were they basically ignored CB, and put players with potential abiltiy to apply pressure in the oppossing teams backfield, as the priority.

Now the question is...are they right or wrong in this thinking, and if they are correct, did they draft the right players?

 

[antdrewjosh]

It is fairly obvious to me, that the Steelers consider the best way to defend the pass is to apply pressure on the QB...

Especially after the last two drafts were they basically ignored CB, and put players with potential abiltiy to apply pressure in the oppossing teams backfield, as the priority.

Now the question is...are they right or wrong in this thinking, and if they are correct, did they draft the right players?

Thats been their philosophy for years. This is not new. Stop the run. Force predictable pass sitiuations. Sack the quarterback or force mistakes.

 

[Vader]

Again all in your mind!! who's to say that Revis or another great CB wants to come back home and told the GM I'll be there next year! Let me ply out my current contract. Again it's in your mind you have no clue what the future holds the Front Office obviously didn't feel we needed a CB! you do because you don't know the future. Tape take a chill pill you cannot predict the future.

Wow.. just wow.

 

[steel pirate]

The boxing analogy is flawed because the inverse is also true. Smaller, quicker fighters have less of a chance of being knocked out than their larger, slower counter parts.

But they're usually fighting other smaller, quicker fighters that don't have knockout power.

...I heard it last year with Jarvis' health concerns, this year we're jumping on a healthy slash player. Well JJ is still standing...

He did manage to stay healthy. How many sack(s) did he have though?

...To be a good RB I think the most important things are a low center of gravity...

He does have that going for him.