• 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.

Steelers select Dri Archer in Round 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Idioteque said:
Oh. Somebody else registered over there around the same time as I did, with your little catchphrase as their username, then posted almost exclusively to me and me alone about Lawrence Timmons and Manny Sanders, using your exact, verbatim statements, then disappeared the instant this board came back.

That's my bad.
Click to expand...
there really are only a handful of Steelers fans. We do travel well.
 
Everyone came back to this board. I registered on other boards too. This guy!!
 
I has a catch fraze, *******.
 
Superman said:
there really are only a handful of Steelers fans. We do travel well.
Click to expand...

To be honest, it was obvious from the beginning that it was you. I didn't know you were trying to keep it under wraps; I thought it was more of an inside joke than a follow-the-guy-around-even-more-than-I-have-for-the-last-ten-years type of thing.
 
Idioteque said:
Had you come to mine, changed your username and talked only to me, it would have been strange.
Click to expand...


Well that's ****** creepy.
that you have a board.
but come HERE to stalk me and antdrew

****** creepy.
 
Idioteque said:
True, but that doesn't make the pick less valuable. It doesn't mean that you should take an attitude of "Well, we can afford to piss this one away." You should still try.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that's what the front office thinks?
 
Idioteque said:
And what I'm saying is that I doubt the reliability of those stats. Stat-tracking changes tremendously from one generation to the next. By those numbers, Franco fumbled once every two games he played. No RB in the NFL today fumbles anywhere near that often, so I seriously doubt the two are congruent.

I'm not interested in comparing Archer to RBs of generations that didn't keep accurate numbers. Or past generations in general. Let's look at today's NFL. Nowadays, players get benched and/or cut for fumbling less often than Archer. Belichick benches Stevan Ridley for fumbling 1-3 times per season, and he fumbles way, way less often than Archer. Sounds like a fumbling problem to me.
Click to expand...

Really? Now the part-time, fumbling, oft-injured player cannot be compared to 'actual' NFL stats because they didn't keep accurate numbers?

Players from the past fumbled more for numerous reasons. They were used more and targeted more. They played in ****** weather and didn't have COOL GLOVES that make pictures when you hold your hands together.

Players from today's game are still not immune to fumbling though.

Jerome fumbled 13 times in '96-'97
Adrian Peterson fumbled 9 times in 2008 and 7 more times in 2009
Barry Sanders fumbled 10 times in 1989
Tiki Barber fumbled 35 times in 2000-2003
Jamal Lewis fumbled 16 times in '02-'03
Ladanian Tomlinson fumbled 8 times his first year.
Arian Foster fumbled 6 times in 2011

Yes, Bellicheat allegedly benched Ridley for fumbling 8 times in 555 carries BUT he also fumbled 1 time on just 19 catches. While Julian Edelman didn't fumble much at all as a receiver, he fumbled 2 times on 14 rushing attempts!

In 2012, when Archer was a 'full-time' player (cough), he ran back 3 of 16 KO returns, had 4 more TDs on 39 catches and had 16 more TDs on 159 rushing attempts (1 TD per 10 rushes?) AND HAD A WHOPPING 2 FUMBLES ALL YEAR! Must have been the 'aberration' that is the MAC conference? The kid might be bagging groceries in a few years or he might get on the field and win the OROY. It depends on luck, play-calling and utilization, IMO.

What I see is a player who ran 'almost' every route (without much specific training) efficiently, caught some difficult balls (while short-arming some as well) which could have been self-preserving as most of them looked to me and ran the ball like a man in a childs game when in the open field. He won't have that luxury in the NFL but IF he can be used a few plays AND not used a few plays (only one player gets the ball on any given play) he might have a chance at having an impact.
 
you ************. how dare you blasphemise the good name of Julian goddamn Edelman?!
 
Superman said:
you ************. how dare you blasphemise the good name of Julian goddamn Edelman?!
Click to expand...

Can't help it Supe, HE IS A FUMBLER! He fumbled the ball over 14% of his carries! Guess he sucks?
 
keslerclan said:
Can't help it Supe, HE IS A FUMBLER! He fumbled the ball over 14% of his carries! Guess he sucks?
Click to expand...


~grumbles while tearing down the hand-made shrine built to Julian goddamn Edelman~
 
keslerclan said:
Really? Now the part-time, fumbling, oft-injured player cannot be compared to 'actual' NFL stats because they didn't keep accurate numbers?
Click to expand...

Yes, I've compared them repeatedly, which is how I know fumbling 13 times in a little over one season's worth of touches is a terrible fumble rate.

Players from today's game are still not immune to fumbling though.

Jerome fumbled 13 times in '96-'97
Adrian Peterson fumbled 9 times in 2008 and 7 more times in 2009
Barry Sanders fumbled 10 times in 1989
Tiki Barber fumbled 35 times in 2000-2003
Jamal Lewis fumbled 16 times in '02-'03
Ladanian Tomlinson fumbled 8 times his first year.
Arian Foster fumbled 6 times in 2011
Click to expand...

Most of those numbers don't even approach Archer's fumble rate in school, so what was your point again?

Yes, Bellicheat allegedly benched Ridley for fumbling 8 times in 555 carries BUT he also fumbled 1 time on just 19 catches.
Click to expand...

His fumble rate including carries and catches doesn't even approach Archer's fumble rate in school.

While Julian Edelman didn't fumble much at all as a receiver, he fumbled 2 times on 14 rushing attempts!
Click to expand...

Not quiiiiite the same sample size as 450 touches over a four-season span. I think that shows more of a player's performance than 14 end arounds.

In 2012, when Archer was a 'full-time' player (cough), he ran back 3 of 16 KO returns, had 4 more TDs on 39 catches and had 16 more TDs on 159 rushing attempts (1 TD per 10 rushes?) AND HAD A WHOPPING 2 FUMBLES ALL YEAR! Must have been the 'aberration' that is the MAC conference? The kid might be bagging groceries in a few years or he might get on the field and win the OROY. It depends on luck, play-calling and utilization, IMO.

What I see is a player who ran 'almost' every route (without much specific training) efficiently, caught some difficult balls (while short-arming some as well) which could have been self-preserving as most of them looked to me and ran the ball like a man in a childs game when in the open field.
Click to expand...

I like the fact that you cherry-picked one of his FOUR college seasons. But I'm guessing that 2012 was a fluke, because he fumbled 5 times in 2010 and 4 times in 2013. ******* A, the dude fumbled 4 times in 95 touches (including returns!!) last year! In 2010, he fumbled 5 times in 83 touches!

Any way you slice it, he fumbled at a tremendous rate in college.

He won't have that luxury in the NFL but IF he can be used a few plays AND not used a few plays (only one player gets the ball on any given play) he might have a chance at having an impact.
Click to expand...

Sound like a ringing endorsement!
 
Last edited:
Idioteque said:
My guess is that the NFL tracked fumbles inefficiently or just differently back then. No NFL RB has fumbled more than 5 times in a season since 2010. Archer's college fumbling rate would absolutely destroy that mark. Can you find me one scouting report of Archer that doesn't mention his being exceptionally fumble-prone.
Click to expand...

The game has changed. "It used to be a physical game" can you identify the person that said that? There was much greater violence in the old days. Whistles were not as quick. Defensive linemen were not allowed to be held to the degree they are today. There was also less emphasis placed on ball control by the players than today. Modern bio-mechanical studies have refined a great deal of the things that are done now so that they are done better than they were in the past. Think of Tatum's hit on Frenchy Fuchwa (sp) that would not be allowed today. The hits that Franco and Rocky took as well as many others. Guys were knocked out in the old days and lost the ball when they got drilled. I think lots of things have had an impact on the fumbles per game in the past besides record keeping.
 
Fumbling and turnovers were much more "accepted" by offensive coaches back in the day.

According to Pro Football Reference, turnovers by fumbling has significantly declined over the past 30 years as offensive coaches deplore turnovers and under appreciate natural running talent at the position.

In 1960, There were 1.13 fumbles lost per game.
In 1965, there were 1.16 fumbles lost per game.
In 1970, there were 1.02 fumbles lost per game.
In 1975 there were 1.14 fumbles lost per game.
In 1980 there were 0.92 fumbles lost per game.
In 1985 there were 1.04 fumbles lost per game.
In 1990 there were 0.92 fumbles lost per game.
In 1995 there were 0.84 fumbles lost per game.
In 2000 there were 0.81 fumbles lost per game.
In 2005 there were 0.76 fumbles lost per game.
In 2010 there were 0.68 fumbles lost per game.
In 2013 there were 0.61 fumbles lost per game.

In reality, there are probably 60% of the number of fumbles lost now as there were in the 1970's. Just a continuing evolution of offenses and what is important to offensive coaches. Coaches like Tomlin are not accepting of ANY fumbling where in the old days, coaches like Noll expected a certain amount from their backs/quarterbacks. Times have changed.
 
"******* A"?
The 80s called and want to gag you with a spoon.
 
Idioteque said:
The stalking never. *******. ceases.

******* A.
Click to expand...

well, since you want to accuse me of it, I shall show you stalking, ************.
i've told you repeatedly that I've only posted on one other site twice. You call it YOUR board.
so what is this? Not your board, one could presume.
and when you post in 99.7% of all active threads in a forum, chances are that you'll exchange more than one or two comments with the same members. are those people stalking your foolish *** as well?
 
Idioteque said:
What does this **** mean?
Click to expand...

it means that since you so hopelessly want to say that I'm stalking you that I shall show you what stalking is.
do you need a spreadsheet, ************?
maybe a big board?
smarmy ******* jackass.
 
377.gif



35 freggin' pages?!?!? HAHAHAHA


This is getting pitiful gentlemen...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top