• 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.
deljzc said:
The point I'm trying to make is I wouldn't draft a one-trick pony, red zone specialist with the #97 pick in the draft either even though I could argue someone like that would increase our scoring output more than a top-5 kick returner.

The top-5 kick return teams (by yards per return) were Kansas City, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Dallas and Cincinnati. Two 11-5, two 8-8 and one 4-12.

Do you think having a good kick returner helps predict future success? No. No one is jumping on those teams as "improving" (the over/under on their projected 2014 win totals: 9, 8 1/2, 8, 8 and 4 1/2). No one starts their analysis of a team and says "Oh look, they were 2nd in kickoff return yards last year, I think that will get them another win or two".

Return yardage is one of the most overblown statistics in the history of the sport (right up there with punt yardage). Even if we correctly evaluate special teams production as a +/- "Big Plays" (similar to how teams look at turnovers, because they happen actually LESS frequently than turnovers), it is fundamentally a fruitless waste of effort because big plays in the return game (both for/against) are very hard to predict and maintain year-to-year (just like turnovers).

Just as turnovers aren't because of ONE individual (if anything they are more related to what a coach concentrates on in practice), +/- big plays in the special teams is more a result of depth, practice and coaching methods.

It's really one of the big flaws of Mike Tomlin and many in the Tony Dungy coaching tree (Marinelli, Kiffin, Smith, Edwards, et. al.). They chase the golden goose of "turnovers" and "special teams" to the point they actually cause harm to the rest of the team fundamentally. Lovie Smith is actually the shining example of this. No where in history can you see a coach spend more time on preaching turnovers and investing in the return game like Lovie Smith in Chicago. They practiced turnovers. They practiced the return game with Hester (who is talented and was drafted in the 3rd round btw). But to what end? They averaged 9 wins. Failed to make the playoffs 6 of 9 seasons. Never really was good enough at the really important things to get over the hump. At the height of their turnover/special teams expertise, they went 13-3 and got to the Super Bowl. They generated an absurd 44 turnovers on defense and Hester had 5 returns for touchdowns.

But was that sustainable? Do we look back at that Chicago team as the shining example of what to achieve? No way. Their offense was below average. They had a terrible quarterback. In many ways history looks at that Bears team and calls them lucky more than good. They never validated their season. Following it up with a 7-9 record and a -14 scoring differential. Sound familiar? Notice the lack of consistency? Like maybe similar to a team that wears black and gold and has another Dungy disciple as coach?

The problem with Dungy to Edwards to Smith to Tomlin is their lack of education on the offensive side of the ball makes them feel helpless to actually IMPROVE the team. They try to concentrate on fluff peripheral stuff like turnovers and special teams (things almost impossible to be good at year-in, year-out) because they don't really know how to draft, teach and create a dominant team (both sides of the ball). They consistently turn over the offense to others, then concentrate on very small pieces of the pie in the off-season to reiterate they are in "charge".

I'm not convinced Tombert thought Shazier is the best decision for the team or if he thought Shazier is a cheap fix to his turnover problem. I'm not sure Tomlin thinks Archer is a legit offensive player (ala Warrick Dunn) or a cheap hood ornament that will help fix his special teams problem. To me when coaches/GMs look for "quick fixes" to problems (both perceived, frivolous or warranted), that is a dangerous path.

That is not drafting best player available.
Click to expand...

2009 Steelers draft Mike Wallace at #84. A draft pick that most folks liked and thought he was worth keeping. He was also a one trick pony according to Tomlin. Wallace was a speed guy and that was pretty much all he had. I'm not saying that Archer will be the next Mike Wallace or compares to him in any way other than speed. Just that in the third round there are a lot of one trick ponies taken, which can be ok if the trick is good. I also think that what was left at the bottom of the third all had issues with something.

I would also say that statistics are not as viable in football as in say baseball due to the smaller sample size and the greater impact injuries can play on a season for example. I think Archer will be more than just a special teams player. I enjoyed your post and also your thoughts on the special teams portion of the games but would also add the steelers have lost games that they were in and could have won except for some kick off and punt returns by the other teams for a touch down. Think of new england a few years ago, cleveland and I'm sure there were others.

Also if you wanted to pick someone else out of the players that were left who would you be interested in taking?
 
deljzc said:
Kickoff returns are just such a small part of football now. We're talking about only 2-3 returns a game (the Steelers had 43 total in 2013).

And starting field position is pretty overrated. There is almost no correlation between scoring and starting field position over the course of the season. The primary factor in scoring is how good your offense is. Period. Do you think 2-3 extra yards matters to Peyton Manning? It's complete horseshit.

Here are the top 10 scoring offenses (scoring per possession) and how they ranked in starting field position after a kickoff:

Denver - 17th
San Diego - 20th
New Orleans - 12th
Dallas - 7th
Chicago - 13th
New England - 4th
Green Bay - 15th
Philly - 16th
Seattle - 3rd
Carolina - 6th

You know what best improves your scoring after a kickoff? Getting more horses for your offense. Improving your success rate on offensive plays. Getting a good quarterback. Having depth and versatility at the skill positions. Upgrading your O-line. Effectively running the football. Converting in the red zone.

'****, knowing this regime they will spout a +2 or +3 yard average on our starting field position after kickoffs as a "success" of Dri Archer all the while our offense continues to score 1.9 to 1.95 points per possession and in the bottom half of Red Zone efficiency. In my opinion, drafting JUST a red zone specialist that would ONLY play when you are inside the 20-yard line would actually be a more effective way to increase scoring than drafting a return specialist.
Click to expand...

That is their ranking for average starting field position in general. Not just for kickoffs, but all drives. But you are correct that KORs are bleeding out. Half as many are returned since they moved the kickoff to the 35. And TDs have reduced by more than half. Use to be league-wide KOR TDs were in the 20s every year, now single digits. And there was a push this year to change it again to the 40, which would kill it altogether. IIRC, was tabled til next offseason.

But the extra 3 or so yards per KOR doesn't exactly work that way. Generally that difference comes for 3 or 4 field flipping plays mixed in with a whole bunch of run-o-the-mill returns. Take KC for example. Demps had 4 KORs of 50yds or greater. Each of those directly resulted in points. Considering a starting position at ~midfield needing only 20 yards to get into scoring range, while league average yards/drive is 30, that's almost money in the bank. Anyways, those 4 Demps returns accounted for 261 yards. If you remove those 4 returns, his average drops from 30.1 to a very average 25.2 on all the rest of his returns. Just under 5y diff. Doesn't seem all that significant without that context. In the Houston game, his 57y return led to KCs final 3 points. And they needed them, final score 17-16.

Where this team is talent-wise right now, this team is very average. I've said the last 2 offseasons, and I'll say it again now, this team can go anywhere from 6-10 to 10-6. There is more that goes into winning/losing in this league than just talent alone. Said if they reverse their TO misfortunes, if they stay healthy, manufacture some big ST plays, this team can go 10-6 and make the playoffs, even win the AFCN. A handful of field flipping KORs would really help in that regard.

Whether Archer is that guy who will flip that field 4 times, who knows. Kniles Davis was equally freakish/intriguing in last years draft, but I wanted no part of him because he was a fumble machine and was always injured. He had a big KO return last year, stayed healthy. Was he worth that one big return? Came against Den, close game, but they lost. So, so far, no. But I'm not going to rule it out. And while I didn't love the pick, and recognize KORs are dying on the vine, I still see the significance of flipping the field a handful of times per year. And that might be the difference for a team like this between missing and making the playoffs. Cowher's favorite cliche, it's a fine line.
 
My entire draft was much different than the Steelers because I would have traded down from #15 (and probably would have tried to continue to trade down).

To me, this draft was incredibly deep with potential starters, depth players and roster improvements in the 1st 100 picks. I already am on record as not doing the trade for Landry Jones last year. And it's funny you mention the 2010 draft because that's an example of how, when we did stockpile 3rd round picks, it actually worked out pretty well. Urbik, Wallace and Lewis are all starters somewhere.

At the time, when were on the clock, I wanted Bryant. I had players like Ellington, Justin Ellis, Pierre Desir, Brandon Thomas, David Yankey, Chris Smith, Telvin Smith all higher than Archer on my board and all worth consideration in the round 3-4 range.

I think the following "haul" of players was available to us had we played our cards right with trade downs:

#27 - B. Roby, CB
#46 - S. Tuitt, DE
#81 - L. Nix, NT
#83 - M. Bryant, WR
#86 - B. Ellington, WR
#97 - B. Thomas, OT/OG
#118 - T. Smith, ILB
#157 - C. Smith, OLB/DE
#173 - L. Seastrunk, RB
#192 - R. Reynolds, CB
#215 - D. McCullers, DT/DE
#230 - Y. Smallwood, LB

This assumes TWO trade downs in the first round (one with Miami @ #19 and again with New Orleans to #27, each yielding a 3rd round pick) and assuming we didn't trade for Landry Jones last year.
 
deljzc said:
This assumes TWO trade downs in the first round (one with Miami @ #19 and again with New Orleans to #27, each yielding a 3rd round pick) and assuming we didn't trade for Landry Jones last year.
Click to expand...

You already acknowledged that Miami, in fact, wasn't interested in a trade up even though in your mind they should have been so why do you keep publishing your fantasy scenario? I can do 15 trade downs and get us 25 picks in the 3rd round if we are just bullshitting.
 
There was a trade down available. I don't know what. Even Dallas might have coughed up a 4th rounder to move one spot up for Shazier.

If you want to take out a 3rd rounder and add a 4th rounder instead, go ahead.

We didn't even wait 4 minutes into our draft time before turning in the card, so how the hell do we know Miami WASN'T interested for sure? Did we call them? Did we give them time to call us (I don't think so).

It's tough for me to believe the Steelers that they didn't get good trade down offers when we sprinted to the podium with our card.
 
Things are slowing up. Time to throw some gasoline on the fire!

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...e-notebook-archer-seen-as-mini-jamaal-charles
With offseason practices in full swing, football fans from east to west are getting a first look at this year's class of rookies.

Non-contact sessions don't tell us much, with running backs and shifty wideouts given the green light to flow through defenders untouched.

What we can gather, though, are clues on how first-year players are being used schematically by their coaches.

Let's round up what we're hearing about a handful of talented newbies:

1. Dri Archer


Around The League predicts the Week 1 starting lineups for all 32 teams, analyzing the potential impact of each rookie class.

AFC East
» Bills | Dolphins | Jets | Patriots
AFC North
» Bengals | Browns | Ravens | Steelers
AFC South
» Colts | Jaguars | Texans | Titans
AFC West
» Broncos | Chargers | Chiefs | Raiders
NFC East
» Cowboys | Eagles | Giants | Redskins
NFC North
» Bears | Lions | Packers | Vikings
NFC South
» Buccaneers | Falcons | Panthers | Saints
NFC West
» Cardinals | 49ers | Rams | Seahawks


In his latest offseason video notebook, NFL Media's Albert Breer stressed that a primary focus in Pittsburgh is improving a ground game that finished 27th in the league last season. While free-agent addition LeGarrette Blount has "impressed" coaches and figures to form a one-two punch with second-year back Le'Veon Bell, one young X-factor looms: Dri Archer.

The runner out of Kent State "has been tagged internally as a miniature version of Jamaal Charles" in Todd Haley's offense, per Breer.

It's also worth nothing that Steelers general manager Kevin Colbert previously drew a parallel between Archer and former Lions return man Mel Gray, another hint that Pittsburgh has big plans for the 5-foot-8 jitterbug.
 
Lol Ford I beat you to it.
 
I will repeat myself on Archer, his size and speed, David Meggett. Look at that little Meggett run.
 
deljzc said:
My entire draft was much different than the Steelers because I would have traded down from #15 (and probably would have tried to continue to trade down).

To me, this draft was incredibly deep with potential starters, depth players and roster improvements in the 1st 100 picks. I already am on record as not doing the trade for Landry Jones last year. And it's funny you mention the 2010 draft because that's an example of how, when we did stockpile 3rd round picks, it actually worked out pretty well. Urbik, Wallace and Lewis are all starters somewhere.

At the time, when were on the clock, I wanted Bryant. I had players like Ellington, Justin Ellis, Pierre Desir, Brandon Thomas, David Yankey, Chris Smith, Telvin Smith all higher than Archer on my board and all worth consideration in the round 3-4 range.

I think the following "haul" of players was available to us had we played our cards right with trade downs:

#27 - B. Roby, CB
#46 - S. Tuitt, DE
#81 - L. Nix, NT
#83 - M. Bryant, WR
#86 - B. Ellington, WR
#97 - B. Thomas, OT/OG
#118 - T. Smith, ILB
#157 - C. Smith, OLB/DE
#173 - L. Seastrunk, RB
#192 - R. Reynolds, CB
#215 - D. McCullers, DT/DE
#230 - Y. Smallwood, LB

This assumes TWO trade downs in the first round (one with Miami @ #19 and again with New Orleans to #27, each yielding a 3rd round pick) and assuming we didn't trade for Landry Jones last year.
Click to expand...

Having a real hard time believing you wouldn't have taken Nix R1 in that scenario, let alone holding your sand til R3.
 
You know what would make this thread better? Random skin pics. Hopefully this post moves us to the Big Snack page.
 
Steelerfan said:
You know what would make this thread better? Random skin pics. Hopefully this post moves us to the Big Snack page.
Click to expand...
2009-12-07-20-11-16.png

....................................
 
Hey Del,

We traded up for Shamarko, not Jones. NBD...

Your assessment on special teams, is usually correct, but there are instances where a team with a terrible offense can be successful with special teams and great defense.

The Bears made the Superbowl with terrible O, and great D. Hester even took the opening score to the house. Then their D forgot how to stop the run.

The Ravens in 2000 were the biggest supporters of special teams and turnovers. The D was excellent at getting short fields, and Jamal Lewis was electric as a return man. They had that terrible offensive on such a short field that they were scoring at a high clip. Hell Stover IMHO was their offensive MVP that season, since he was their only consistent scoring threat on offense. They had little threat to score offensive TDs, Stover was money, and the D knew if they had a lead, they were winning. Place it with their excellent return game and they earned a Superbowl because of it.

I do agree that special teams is not as important as offense and defense, but playing on a shorter field will increase the chance for an offense to score. I'd rather start 60yds out over 80yds out any drive. Though if Archer doesn't pan out as a return threat, the point is moot on my end.
 
dobre shunka said:
Having a real hard time believing you wouldn't have taken Nix R1 in that scenario, let alone holding your sand til R3.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the only reason Nix fell was injury report. If I had access to that, I would not have had Nix as highly rated. I agree there would have been a discussion in my war room about Nix vs. Tuitt at pick #46. Both fit what we do very well. If injury concerns pushed Nix down, I would have been okay with Tuitt. However, once round 3 rolls around and Nix is still on the board, I don't pass him up - injury issue or not.
 
deljzc said:
In my opinion, the only reason Nix fell was injury report. If I had access to that, I would not have had Nix as highly rated. I agree there would have been a discussion in my war room about Nix vs. Tuitt at pick #46. Both fit what we do very well. If injury concerns pushed Nix down, I would have been okay with Tuitt. However, once round 3 rolls around and Nix is still on the board, I don't pass him up - injury issue or not.
Click to expand...

Nix is kinda short though... :)
 
Casey says "I smell a cheeseburger"

casey.JPG
 
FordFairLane said:
The runner out of Kent State "has been tagged internally as a miniature version of Jamaal Charles" in Todd Haley's offense, per Breer
Click to expand...

How is this possible if he was moved to WR 30 seconds into his first camp, then got compared to Mel Gray?
 
He was given a WR number so that he can line up anywhere and not have to report to the referees everytime he is in the game.
 
I also think the idea we have a "special, unique" part of the offense now puts Haley in an unwinnable situation.

I hate offenses that have guys that are so specialized you start second guessing the OC's when they don't get them a certain amount of "touches". If we lose and Archer gets only 1-2 carries, people will *****. If we lose and Archer gets too many carries, we'll be questioning why they take Bell off the field or forcing the ball to Archer and whether that is coming from the head coach (who's neck is on the line) or Haley.

I just see very few outcomes that make everyone happy. Hell, if Archer even hits the tip of the iceberg and becomes another Dunn/Charles, what's that say about Bell and the reach investment we made on him then a year ago? Picking Bell felt as "forced" a selection for need as any during the Tombert era. We're not going to relegate him into a dual roll already are we?

All I see with Archer is a lot of controversy - plays too much, plays too little, playing him at the wrong spot, not taking advantage of his skill set, et. al.

My prediction all along for Archer is this:

1. He will improve our kickoff return greatly (in my opinion, his kickoff ability is the most NFL ready of his traits).
2. He will struggle more than people think at ball security in the punt return game. I think you will see more "sure handed" punt returners used in tricky spots (like inside the 20) and you will only see Archer return punts is advantageous spots (like when he's standing between the 40's). Tomlin has done this throughout his tenure (using Holmes and Brown in advantageous spots).
3. I think he will look like a better running back than slot receiver but he will get much less touches that people think on offense (2-3 per game).
4. I think he will get dinged up and miss 2-3 games.

I predict his AV will be 2 and he will score 2 TD's (1 return, 1 offensive).

I predict there will be some here that will question hard why he's not getting more touches in the offense at some point during the season.
 
FordFairLane said:
Charles is one of the best receiving RB's in the nfl.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he's 100% RB, so I just can't see comparing the two. It would be like saying "Archer is our new Arian Foster." Archer is not a RB and has practiced with the WRs (exclusively?) as of the very first few days of camp.

Just hate the sensationalist catchphrase bullshit every national sports story gets wrapped up in now.
 
Idioteque said:
Yes, but he's 100% RB, so I just can't see comparing the two. It would be like saying "Archer is our new Arian Foster." Archer is not a RB and has practiced with the WRs (exclusively?) as of the very first few days of camp.

Just hate the sensationalist catchphrase bullshit every national sports story gets wrapped up in now.
Click to expand...

He has not praticed at WR exclusively.. not even close.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top