• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Colin Holb-a long snapper in the 6th ?now yinz have something legitimate to ***** at.

Cope said:
Welcome to the 2017 version of the Dri Archer thread!
Click to expand...

And just remember, when it came to Dri Archer, the fans were right and the so-called "professionals" were wrong. They aren't as smart as many here believe. And what they do isn't as hard as some think.
 
Supersteeler said:
If he's the next Mike Schneck or Greg Warren (aka rock solid for the next decade), I would argue that it is a more valuable late round pick than we normally have, other than AB and a couple other notable exceptions.
Click to expand...

If he's around snapping for a decade, then he is not k mart socks, but those fancy nike elite socks that all the cool kids wear
 
deljzc said:
And just remember, when it came to Dri Archer, the fans were right and the so-called "professionals" were wrong. They aren't as smart as many here believe. And what they do isn't as hard as some think.
Click to expand...

Dude. You are wrong most of the time about draft prospects. I know this. The Steelers aren't perfect, but they are a lot better than most teams. You are not smarter than them. You are not a NFL GM who missed his calling. Most of the players that "the fans" would have drafted instead of Archer are also no longer in the league. So is Limas Sweed - the Steeler fan favorite 2nd round pick of all time.
 
MTC said:
If he's around snapping for a decade, then he is not k mart socks, but those fancy nike elite socks that all the cool kids wear
Click to expand...


I just ordered some HAMMER NUTRITION that I use durring my KAYAK work outs. They threw in a pair of compression socks which I plan to wear to cover the 3
' skin gap between my kayak shoes and warm pant legging. (To keep from sunburn). It was a $27.96 value. KEWL me.




Salute the nation
 
Troglodyte said:
Dude. You are wrong most of the time about draft prospects. I know this. The Steelers aren't perfect, but they are a lot better than most teams. You are not smarter than them. You are not a NFL GM who missed his calling. Most of the players that "the fans" would have drafted instead of Archer are also no longer in the league. So is Limas Sweed - the Steeler fan favorite 2nd round pick of all time.
Click to expand...

Sweed STILL pisses me off. Man, what a steal he seemed to be.
 
Well, I wanted Breshaud Breeland instead of Archer and he starts now at corner for the Skins.... :)



Troglodyte said:
Dude. You are wrong most of the time about draft prospects. I know this. The Steelers aren't perfect, but they are a lot better than most teams. You are not smarter than them. You are not a NFL GM who missed his calling. Most of the players that "the fans" would have drafted instead of Archer are also no longer in the league. So is Limas Sweed - the Steeler fan favorite 2nd round pick of all time.
Click to expand...
 
LS Kameron Canaday was released just a FYI
 
Troglodyte said:
Dude. You are wrong most of the time about draft prospects. I know this. The Steelers aren't perfect, but they are a lot better than most teams. You are not smarter than them. You are not a NFL GM who missed his calling. Most of the players that "the fans" would have drafted instead of Archer are also no longer in the league. So is Limas Sweed - the Steeler fan favorite 2nd round pick of all time.
Click to expand...

That's bullshit. The fans smell out stinking draft picks surprisingly well.

We can debate Watt vs. Awuzie vs. Baker vs. Foster but the truth is all those options are viable selections. Plus, the teams have an enormous amount of additional information about these players that fans do. They do background checks and wonderlic scores and pschology tests and interviews. Teams should do MUCH BETTER than any fan out there but they don't. I've recorded every pick I've made in the weeks following drafts vs. the Steelers and the total AV of all my selections is surprisingly similar to the total AV of all of Colbert's. Maybe it's just completely luck and there is no skill at all. That is probably more likely than thinking these guys are rocket scientists watching film and controlling rosters with puppet strings.

This is a bad selection and every fan knows it. The value, even if the best of circumstances, doesn't justify the cost. And that's all it really comes down too.

What I know is that the draft is VERY random and lucky, which is why (like TMC has stated numerous times), you play the averages. Any indicator that normally leads to success at a position, you lean that way. All you are trying to do is increase your lottery chances by the smallest margins.

The problem with this pick and the Sepulveda pick and the Dri Archer pick are they go the completely OPPOSITE direction of trying to increase their lottery ticket value. They purposely picked guys with so little upside and/or potential or common sense measurables vs. what succeeds in the NFL that they LOWERED their chances of the lottery pick striking gold.

That is bad drafting. And it will always be bad drafting.
 
deljzc said:
That's bullshit. The fans smell out stinking draft picks surprisingly well.

We can debate Watt vs. Awuzie vs. Baker vs. Foster but the truth is all those options are viable selections. Plus, the teams have an enormous amount of additional information about these players that fans do. They do background checks and wonderlic scores and pschology tests and interviews. Teams should do MUCH BETTER than any fan out there but they don't. I've recorded every pick I've made in the weeks following drafts vs. the Steelers and the total AV of all my selections is surprisingly similar to the total AV of all of Colbert's. Maybe it's just completely luck and there is no skill at all. That is probably more likely than thinking these guys are rocket scientists watching film and controlling rosters with puppet strings.

This is a bad selection and every fan knows it. The value, even if the best of circumstances, doesn't justify the cost. And that's all it really comes down too.

What I know is that the draft is VERY random and lucky, which is why (like TMC has stated numerous times), you play the averages. Any indicator that normally leads to success at a position, you lean that way. All you are trying to do is increase your lottery chances by the smallest margins.

The problem with this pick and the Sepulveda pick and the Dri Archer pick are they go the completely OPPOSITE direction of trying to increase their lottery ticket value. They purposely picked guys with so little upside and/or potential or common sense measurables vs. what succeeds in the NFL that they LOWERED their chances of the lottery pick striking gold.

That is bad drafting. And it will always be bad drafting.
Click to expand...

I will defend just about every pick. I could see what they wanted to do with Archer. I still think it would have worked out, but he was badly managed...it, certainly could have worked out better. When they ditched him for the other guy they brought in showed how much worse it could get. That is neither here, nor there, though. Whether I would have done it is irrelevant and I wasn't pissed about it. Till we cut him at least.

A LS, I just don't get, though. I can see wanting a good one, but, as TMC said, if you don't draft one, the worst thing that can happen is you sign the 2nd best in the draft as UDFA.
 
On one hand I know we could have gotten a long snapper in UDFA. No Question. Is our guy that much better head and shoulders above the #2 because we would have ended up with either 1. Also I realize the draft value, the strategy of drafting and making your team better. Did this draftee make our team better, YES he did but at a cost. Would he or the #2 in nation LS have made our team better, yes and NOT cost a draft pick doing it. LS is difficult but NOT as difficult as many here make it seem. THERE is definately more than ONE LS in any NFL DRAFT, just they don't get drafted often as that position can be filled by a UDFA.





Salute the nation
 
deljzc said:
What I know is that the draft is VERY random and lucky, which is why (like TMC has stated numerous times), you play the averages. Any indicator that normally leads to success at a position, you lean that way. All you are trying to do is increase your lottery chances by the smallest margins.

The problem with this pick and the Sepulveda pick and the Dri Archer pick are they go the completely OPPOSITE direction of trying to increase their lottery ticket value. They purposely picked guys with so little upside and/or potential or common sense measurables vs. what succeeds in the NFL that they LOWERED their chances of the lottery pick striking gold.

That is bad drafting. And it will always be bad drafting.
Click to expand...

This supports my contention that the real underlying issue you have with this pick is that it just wasn't fun and exciting. You are arguing that spending a $1 on a lottery ticket is smart, whereas putting it in savings is stupid. No, it's just more fun.

But never mind that. The real absurdity is that if the Steelers had used that pick on one of the position players they signed as free agents, you guys wouldn't have had a problem with it. AND they were possibly among the other prospects that the Steelers were considering for the pick. You're obsessed with the "when" of this pick, there is damn little difference. Again, this pick was 40 picks away from free agency.
 
It's very simple what we're arguing. Nothing to do with fun or exciting. It's a dumb thing to do with a draft choice, del explained it well, I used your socks analogy and explained it well. You're just here to troll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMC
Heres how I look at it. The draft is a crap shoot. You can scout and scout guys, but you still never know what will happen. If there is such a thing as a sure 6th round pick then this guy is it. If you can get a long term player from a 6th round pick then I think it is a win and good pick. I know the counter argument is that we could have got him later or signed as a FA, but no one knows that for sure. Sure we could have took a flier on a raw prospect at a position of need, but the chances of that working out are very very low.
 
Black & Gold Bleeder said:
It's very simple what we're arguing. Nothing to do with fun or exciting. It's a dumb thing to do with a draft choice, del explained it well, I used your socks analogy and explained it well. You're just here to troll.
Click to expand...

LOL! Right, and the Steelers are my accomplice.

This guy could be a rock solid snapper for the next 12 years and you guys will still insist it was a stupid pick. That is epically absurd.
 
There are just two types of people that look at this type of stuff.

If Trog was watching two people play blackjack and both drew 18's vs. the dealer has a 7 showing. Player A decides to take a "hit" and draws a 3, thus giving him 21. Player B stays on 18. The dealer then reveals a 4 under card and hits and draws a 9, thus giving the dealer a 20.

To Trog, player A is the better blackjack player because he "won" while player B is the worse blackjack player since he "lost".

To the other type of watchers (like me), I understand completely that player B is the better blackjack player but you can't explain that to people like Trog who only wants to pay attention to results. To Trog, as long as player A makes more money, no matter how illogical or against the odds, it's okay with him. Doesn't matter if Player A plays 10 hands and still wins more money that player B or 100 hands. Doesn't ever matter. Results and money made are the only thing that matters.

And unlike gambling, where the winners and losers (over time) are so apparent, there is no way to convince Trog that picking a positional player in round 6 is by far the better choice vs. a long snapper because to him, there is never going to be 1000's of events to prove us correct. He can concentrate on a very low number of events (and thus statistically more difficult to prove) and pick and choose his success stories.

It really just comes down to which Blackjack player you think is better. Either you know Player B is better or you don't. And no amount of convincing people like Trog that Player B is better is going to change their minds.
 
deljzc said:
There are just two types of people that look at this type of stuff.

If Trog was watching two people play blackjack and both drew 18's vs. the dealer has a 7 showing. Player A decides to take a "hit" and draws a 3, thus giving him 21. Player B stays on 18. The dealer then reveals a 4 under card and hits and draws a 9, thus giving the dealer a 20.

To Trog, player A is the better blackjack player because he "won" while player B is the worse blackjack player since he "lost".

To the other type of watchers (like me), I understand completely that player B is the better blackjack player but you can't explain that to people like Trog who only wants to pay attention to results. To Trog, as long as player A makes more money, no matter how illogical or against the odds, it's okay with him. Doesn't matter if Player A plays 10 hands and still wins more money that player B or 100 hands. Doesn't ever matter. Results and money made are the only thing that matters.

And unlike gambling, where the winners and losers (over time) are so apparent, there is no way to convince Trog that picking a positional player in round 6 is by far the better choice vs. a long snapper because to him, there is never going to be 1000's of events to prove us correct. He can concentrate on a very low number of events (and thus statistically more difficult to prove) and pick and choose his success stories.

It really just comes down to which Blackjack player you think is better. Either you know Player B is better or you don't. And no amount of convincing people like Trog that Player B is better is going to change their minds.
Click to expand...

Here I always thought it WAS results that mattered.
 
What if player A was a card counter?

I'm going to watch both players over a period of time to see who is better. Even the better player may make some bad decisions.

The Steelers, overall, show they have better results than most over the long term. They still make odd choices, at times. As I said, for most, I can understand the intention. This one, not so much.
 
deljzc said:
There are just two types of people that look at this type of stuff.

If Trog was watching two people play blackjack and both drew 18's vs. the dealer has a 7 showing. Player A decides to take a "hit" and draws a 3, thus giving him 21. Player B stays on 18. The dealer then reveals a 4 under card and hits and draws a 9, thus giving the dealer a 20.

To Trog, player A is the better blackjack player because he "won" while player B is the worse blackjack player since he "lost".

To the other type of watchers (like me), I understand completely that player B is the better blackjack player but you can't explain that to people like Trog who only wants to pay attention to results. To Trog, as long as player A makes more money, no matter how illogical or against the odds, it's okay with him. Doesn't matter if Player A plays 10 hands and still wins more money that player B or 100 hands. Doesn't ever matter. Results and money made are the only thing that matters.

And unlike gambling, where the winners and losers (over time) are so apparent, there is no way to convince Trog that picking a positional player in round 6 is by far the better choice vs. a long snapper because to him, there is never going to be 1000's of events to prove us correct. He can concentrate on a very low number of events (and thus statistically more difficult to prove) and pick and choose his success stories.

It really just comes down to which Blackjack player you think is better. Either you know Player B is better or you don't. And no amount of convincing people like Trog that Player B is better is going to change their minds.
Click to expand...

What the Bears did with Trubiski was a gamble. What the Raiders did with Conley was a gamble. I think you are the first person to ever suggest a late sixth round pick was a gamble.
 
deljzc said:
Yep, you are one the idiots out there. That's the point of the analogy.
Click to expand...

First of all, I was just joking around. I don't like drafting a long snapper, either. Lighten up, Francis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top