Steelers select Dri Archer in Round 3

[t-man]

So having an opinion is "I can do a better job?" I didn't like him the second he was drafted NOT 5 years later. What's your position? And if you give an opinion does that mean you can do a better job?

Jesus Christ, I swear this is like having a ******* conversation with a kid.

Having the opinion of "we should not have taken that person" implies that there might indeed be a person YOU would have selected if YOU had the choice. Right? Or are you saying you think we should have just skipped the ******* pick all together?

It's like taking our daughter out to dinner, I ask what she wants, and she'll say "not fish" to which I reply, great, but I doubt "not fish" is going to make you very full.

Not fish is NOT an answer to what DO you want, it's an answer to what don't you want. THAT is always an easier answer.

Joe

 

[antdrewjosh]

Lol this is rich. Funny any reports of the kid doing well in practice or when he made plays in pre-season was met with you guys are just keeping this thread open for no reason. The length of this thread is ridiculous. Stop posting in it. Close it. Now the kid is struggling its ok to post in this thread again. Funny.

No coincidence that the Steelers played their best game of the year and are on a two game win streak that this thread was risen from the dead. Cant ***** about coaching this week so let me see Archer aint doing **** I'll just jump on that.

 

[Hollywood Bags]

Jesus Christ, I swear this is like having a ******* conversation with a kid.

Having the opinion of "we should not have taken that person" implies that there might indeed be a person YOU would have selected if YOU had the choice. Right? Or are you saying you think we should have just skipped the ******* pick all together?

It's like taking our daughter out to dinner, I ask what she wants, and she'll say "not fish" to which I reply, great, but I doubt "not fish" is going to make you very full.

Not fish is NOT an answer to what DO you want, it's an answer to what don't you want. THAT is always an easier answer.

Joe

How about "it's none of your ******* business" then? Take your sanctimonious bullshit somewhere else, pal.

 

[t-man]

Archer- He's better than a stick in your eye!

Sorry, this thread just made me think of that old joke, I'll be some here would argue that to not be so as well.

I'm glad I still find humor in this place, hopefully everyone else can too. I still say we wait and see how he does, I really do hope the game slows down for him, those college highlights did look like he was going to be something special, but so far those saying it would not translate to the NFL have been right. I do, however, hope they end up being wrong. Not so I can be right, which I kind of would not be, since I didn't know who the hell archer was till the Steelers called his name, but because if the kid can contribute to this team, it's better for the team, better for us as fans, and better for our overall talent on the field.

Joe

 

[t-man]

How about "it's none of your ******* business" then? Take your sanctimonious bullshit somewhere else, pal.

Wow, that's an awesome position to have, you're a real ******* genius aren't you? So, yeah, what you're saying is you're a ******* idiot without ANY idea who you WOULD take, but just that you WOULD NOT take this person or that.

******* douche.

Oh, and **** off Ravens Troll.

Joe

 

[t-man]

How about "it's none of your ******* business" then? Take your sanctimonious bullshit somewhere else, pal.

Additionally, if one of us ends up taking our bullshit somewhere else, It's most certainly not going to be me. I've been dealing with ******* cumstains like you for years upon ******* years on message boards, way back before they had all these pretty interfaces, and I'll be here posting long after you've toddled off to www.isuckjoeflaccosnutsack.com to do your posting there.

Joe

 

[Steeltime]

Lol this is rich. Funny any reports of the kid doing well in practice or when he made plays in pre-season was met with you guys are just keeping this thread open for no reason. The length of this thread is ridiculous. Stop posting in it. Close it. Now the kid is struggling its ok to post in this thread again. Funny.

No coincidence that the Steelers played their best game of the year and are on a two game win streak that this thread was risen from the dead. Cant ***** about coaching this week so let me see Archer aint doing **** I'll just jump on that.

That is just not accurate. It isn't. Look, I know it's political season and therefore bullshit is the current coin of the realm, but the criticism of the pick was not held back, or late in coming, and it was based on WHAT ARCHER COULD DO, and would not be able to do. The first page included these comments:

So we are investing our late third rounder in a player that will see 10 snaps per game? The team has too many holes to pick this kind of players. Get your **** together before you risk such value in a pretty fast dwarf

Archer was not a punt returner in school. It's not something just anyone can do; there's more to it than running in a straight line. In shorts. Archer and all of his speed wasn't given that job at Kent effing State. I suppose it will be easier in the NFL.. ?

Litos and Idioteque were right - Archer simply does NOT have an NFL skill set, and Idioteque pointed out that those giving Archer the punt return spot were wrong; the guy did not return punts at Kent St. and we are supposed to believe he will do so in the NFL?

And the meme, "Whom would you have taken?" is all well and good. However, don't simply ignore the fact that many correctly pointed out that since Archer had no NFL skill set, was too small, was injury prone, that kickoff returns were no longer a factor in the new NFL, and that he was not a punt returner in college, he was a bad pick.

It's like this. You buy a lottery ticket. You love the number 7, so you pick 7 six times. Somebody points out that doing so guarantees a bad outcome, and you respond, "Okay, smart guy, tell me which numbers you would pick?" He identifies 6 different numbers.

The 6 numbers the guy identified do not come in. You say, "See? Your selection sucked as well."

That is not the damn point. The point is that at least the 6 different numbers HAD A CHANCE at winning, while selecting "7" six times was a guaranteed loser.

 

[t-man]

That is just not accurate. It isn't. Look, I know it's political season and therefore bullshit is the current coin of the realm, but the criticism of the pick was not held back, or late in coming, and it was based on WHAT ARCHER COULD DO, and would not be able to do. The first page included these comments:





Litos and Idioteque were right - Archer simply does NOT have an NFL skill set, and Idioteque pointed out that those giving Archer the punt return spot were wrong; the guy did not return punts at Kent St. and we are supposed to believe he will do so in the NFL?

And the meme, "Whom would you have taken?" is all well and good. However, don't simply ignore the fact that many correctly pointed out that since Archer had no NFL skill set, was too small, was injury prone, that kickoff returns were no longer a factor in the new NFL, and that he was not a punt returner in college, he was a bad pick.

It's like this. You buy a lottery ticket. You love the number 7, so you pick 7 six times. Somebody points out that doing so guarantees a bad outcome, and you respond, "Okay, smart guy, tell me which numbers you would pick?" He identifies 6 different numbers.

The 6 numbers the guy identified do not come in. You say, "See? Your selection sucked as well."

That is not the damn point. The point is that at least the 6 different numbers HAD A CHANCE at winning, while selecting "7" six times was a guaranteed loser.

There are no guaranteed losers or winners in the draft, that's why we're still debating this 156 pages in, that's why Manning is still playing, and Ryan Leaf is in jail, that's why the most NFL ready quarterback of several years ago, Matt Leinart is not playing NFL football anywhere, Huey Richardson, and on, and on, and on.

Willie Parker was undrafted. Tim Worley was a very early round pick by the great Chuck Noll. The draft makes fools of everyone, it's just some want to pretend it could never make a fool of them, so they come here with ONLY hindsight.

Joe

 

[antdrewjosh]

This thread is not 155 pages because someone gave their opinion of Archer on the first page. Lol. Not hardly.

 

[Idioteque]

Yep, and that's AWESOME, but it's also very easy to do. This is how things usually go around here-

On draft day- Man I HATE that ******* pick, why did we take that guy?

Reply- Who should we have taken?

Well ANYONE but him, blah blah blah.

Two years later,

Yeah, I SOOO would have taken *Now well established player* over that ******* scrub we have.

Problem is, it's using hidnsight, and bashing the guy who does NOT have the ability to know what's going to happen with a guy 2 years from now any more than you do. ****, none of your jobs rest on picking the right guy, but when I suggest we do it, just to see how many of those picks would pan out, people start calling ME out, WHY do I want to know these things? Hmmmm? WHY would I want to know WHO you WOULD pick?

Well, senior ********, it's because when you're on here bashing the pick of the guy who DOES have the job, I'd like to know who YOU might have taken, so we have something to compare that DOES NOT have the benefit of hindsight.

Joe

Well.. shouldn't it be the GM's job to identify the better player?

I mean, if Bashaun Breeland turns out to be a star, shouldn't ALL 31 teams who passed on him be held accountable? I don't mean "held accountable" to mean fired, or criticized, as though they must have a 100% draft success rate. But isn't it their fault they didn't draft him?

What's wrong with a 49er fan saying "I think we should've taken Tom Brady instead of Gio Carmazzi in 2000"? Does that really make him an *******?

 

[Idioteque]

Jesus Christ, I swear this is like having a ******* conversation with a kid.

Having the opinion of "we should not have taken that person" implies that there might indeed be a person YOU would have selected if YOU had the choice. Right? Or are you saying you think we should have just skipped the ******* pick all together?

It's like taking our daughter out to dinner, I ask what she wants, and she'll say "not fish" to which I reply, great, but I doubt "not fish" is going to make you very full.

Not fish is NOT an answer to what DO you want, it's an answer to what don't you want. THAT is always an easier answer.

Joe

Yeah, we all get that. It's not a lofty point you're making. The problem is that you've built a MASSIVE ******* strawman.

"I think we should've taken someone other than Archer."

"OH, so you're some ******* PROFESSIONAL ******* GM?!?!? You think the Steelers are STUPID? You think YOU could do a better job than Tomlin and Colbert? You think YOU'RE some ******* GENIUS?"

Goddamn, dude. Just differing in opinion doesn't mean you're claiming to know ALL of life's answers. It just means you have eyeballs and a brain and saw that Archer was an awful prospect.

Note that I said prospect, not player. Ari the player is very fast and ran for a lot of yardage in college. Dri the prospect was a tiny, injury-prone fumbler who doesn't project to any NFL position. Calling someone a ****** prospect isn't predicting the future like predicting the NFL MVP; it's using data and common sense to come up with a general expectation about the guy's future.

 

[t-man]

Well.. shouldn't it be the GM's job to identify the better player?

I mean, if Bashaun Breeland turns out to be a star, shouldn't ALL 31 teams who passed on him be held accountable? I don't mean "held accountable" to mean fired, or criticized, as though they must have a 100% draft success rate. But isn't it their fault they didn't draft him?

What's wrong with a 49er fan saying "I think we should've taken Tom Brady instead of Gio Carmazzi in 2000"? Does that really make him an *******?

If he didn't say it in 2000, yes, it makes him a total ******* *******. Now, if he is saying "gee, I wish we had taken that person, because our team would be a lot better" That's fine, but if he's saying "our gm is a ******* idiot for not seeing how amazing Brady was going to be" he's full of ****.

Joe

 

[antdrewjosh]

Well.. shouldn't it be the GM's job to identify the better player?

I mean, if Bashaun Breeland turns out to be a star, shouldn't ALL 31 teams who passed on him be held accountable? I don't mean "held accountable" to mean fired, or criticized, as though they must have a 100% draft success rate. But isn't it their fault they didn't draft him?

What's wrong with a 49er fan saying "I think we should've taken Tom Brady instead of Gio Carmazzi in 2000"? Does that really make him an *******?

Are we holding the Steelers accountable for taking Tee Martin in the 5th in the same draft?

 

[t-man]

Yeah, we all get that. It's not a lofty point you're making. The problem is that you've built a MASSIVE ******* strawman.

"I think we should've taken someone other than Archer."

"OH, so you're some ******* PROFESSIONAL ******* GM?!?!? You think the Steelers are STUPID? You think YOU could do a better job than Tomlin and Colbert? You think YOU'RE some ******* GENIUS?"

Goddamn, dude. Just differing in opinion doesn't mean you're claiming to know ALL of life's answers. It just means you have eyeballs and a brain and saw that Archer was an awful prospect.

Note that I said prospect, not player. Ari the player is very fast and ran for a lot of yardage in college. Dri the prospect was a tiny, injury-prone fumbler who doesn't project to any NFL position. Calling someone a ****** prospect isn't predicting the future like predicting the NFL MVP; it's using data and common sense to come up with a general expectation about the guy's future.

Again, your answer for "what do you want for dinner" is still "not fish"

Not fish isn't going to fill you up.

Joe

 

[Idioteque]

There are no guaranteed losers or winners in the draft, that's why we're still debating this 156 pages in, that's why Manning is still playing, and Ryan Leaf is in jail, that's why the most NFL ready quarterback of several years ago, Matt Leinart is not playing NFL football anywhere, Huey Richardson, and on, and on, and on.

Willie Parker was undrafted. Tim Worley was a very early round pick by the great Chuck Noll.

Steeltime absolutely nailed that analogy. Nobody's going for "guarantees" in the draft. Andrew Luck and J.J. Watt were not "guaranteed losers or winners" and either could have ended up the next Ryan Leaf or Steve Emtman. The goal is not to draft a slam dunk, locked down, guaranteed stud. The idea is to evaluate all of these player profiles, examine what they seem to bring to the table, decide whether they would/wouldn't be a good fit, and make a decision.

In the case of Andrew Luck, all of the pieces fit into place - great arm, great brain, great experience, and I assume he interviewed well and struck everyone as a great leader.

In the case of Dri Archer, there were a million red flags and only one positive - and it was a positive that's invalidated in hundreds of college players every year (speed).

The draft makes fools of everyone, it's just some want to pretend it could never make a fool of them, so they come here with ONLY hindsight.

Huh? You're saying I rail against the Archer pick because I was surprised by it and wanted to pretend I wasn't? Dafuq?

See, that's how I feel about posters on here, too. Some of you guys are like John Clayton. You're so afraid of ever being wrong about something that you hedge EVERY bet and cover EVERY base of EVERY statement. "I think Archer could someday maybe be a good player, maybe. He has the tools, but sometimes the tools aren't enough. If he keeps his head down, plays up to his ability, I think he has a good chance of succeeding someday, maybe." These people offer no insight at all. Some of them like antdrewjosh are actually decent football minds, but insist so dearly upon hedging all of their bets that they end up offering absolutely nothing to the discussion. All out of fear of appearing wrong.

 

[Idioteque]

If he didn't say it in 2000, yes, it makes him a total ******* *******. Now, if he is saying "gee, I wish we had taken that person, because our team would be a lot better" That's fine, but if he's saying "our gm is a ******* idiot for not seeing how amazing Brady was going to be" he's full of ****.

Joe

See, the front office is SUPPOSED TO identify the Tom Bradys and the Terrell Davises. When they swing and miss, it's understandable, though it's fair to call them on their performance. Not in a "What a ******* idiot, they should be fired!" way. But don't you have to answer for mistakes you make at work? When they always swing and always miss, an outsider is perfectly justified in wondering if they're doing a good job.

I'm not saying the Steelers ALWAYS miss, just pointing out the absurdity in all of this.

Yes, it's very douchey to come back years later and say, "See, I TOLD you people we should've taken Brady!!" when they had never said it before that draft. That's using revisionist history to (a) discredit the FO and (b) falsely make yourself look brilliant. But I don't see that stuff going on.

 

[Idioteque]

Again, your answer for "what do you want for dinner" is still "not fish"

Not fish isn't going to fill you up.

Joe

You're completely missing the analogy here. You're saying that disliking the Archer pick is UNACCEPTABLE unless you yourself have a list of alternative options. I seriously doubt anyone who dislikes a draft pick would prefer we just skip that pick and move on. Every single poster I've seen complain about taking Archer gave a reason for it, and the vast majority (if not all of them) stated we should've spent that pick on a CB or pass rusher or o-lineman or a different WR.

And besides, I played your little game and suggested alternatives to Archer. Many, many posters did the same. So you're complaining about a ghost here.

 

[Superman]

Perspective, this is a list of the players we were going to be "kicking ourselves, wishing we had taken instead of Archer"

Ellington 4-45 yards (wr)
Reynolds- No starts, no stats
Antonio Richardson- No starts no stats
Carl Bradford No stats
Ryan Carrethers 9 tackles
Justin Ellis- 11 tackles
Daquan Jones- 0 tackles
Jarred Abbrederis no starts, no stats
Cameron Fleming - 4games played, 2 started week2 and week4
Nevin Lawson - 1 tackle

Dri Archer 7 carries 37 yards

Best stats of the group for yards- 45 from a wr with 4 catches.
Best stats of the group for tackles - 11 tackles (less than 2 per game)
Archer has 37 yards produced so far, which as I look at it, sucks, but as I look at the "other guys we will wish we had taken" doesn't exactly stack up too bad, does it?

Joe

you idiot. don't you know tackles are a meaningless stat that show absolutely nothing?

 

[Idioteque]

you idiot. don't you know tackles are a meaningless stat that show absolutely nothing?

No, you're actually right. Tackles mean the world to a rotational DL. We all know that Aaron Smith was a mediocre player, thanks to tackle stats.

 

[Superman]

and since no one is going for an absolute stud at every pick, as someone stated, then what the **** is the argument about over Archer?

I guess the Chargers flip flopping on Leaf and Manning was nothing more than a coin toss.

unreal.

 

[Steeltime]

There are no guaranteed losers or winners in the draft, that's why we're still debating this 156 pages in, that's why Manning is still playing, and Ryan Leaf is in jail, that's why the most NFL ready quarterback of several years ago, Matt Leinart is not playing NFL football anywhere, Huey Richardson, and on, and on, and on.

Joe

But the Leaf pick, and the Leinart pick, and the Richardson pick, etc. can be explained and defended. Specifically, those players had the physical attributes and skill set that made them potential NFL starters. Also, they played in college at those positions, and did well.

Archer was not going to be a running back. He was not going to take Bell's job. He is not big enough to be a 3rd down back and pick up a blitzer. He did not play running back in college, for crying out loud. He was an H-Back/RB hybrid.

He also fumbled in college. And was often injured. His one elite skill - speed - is great, if he has a position.

RB? Nope - fumbles, too small to pick up a blitz, too small for all but a few specialty plays.
WR? Nope. Never played the position. Too small to beat press coverage. Not physical enough to fight for a pass.
Punt returner? Nope. Not good enough to do that task at Kent St. Doubt the NFL is less challenging.
Kickoff returner? Nope. The new NFL has so few returnable kicks that using a 3rd rounder for that task makes no sense.

It is therefore not that other draft picks bust; it is that his skill set made his failure potential vastly too high, and for a 3rd round pick - a pick with value, where good players are available - the pick made no sense.

Use a 7th? Yeah, sure, what the hell. But a 3rd, when the team had yet to help the CB position? No. Just ... no.

 

[t-man]

But the Leaf pick, and the Leinart pick, and the Richardson pick, etc. can be explained and defended. Specifically, those players had the physical attributes and skill set that made them potential NFL starters. Also, they played in college at those positions, and did well.

Archer was not going to be a running back. He was not going to take Bell's job. He is not big enough to be a 3rd down back and pick up a blitzer. He did not play running back in college, for crying out loud. He was an H-Back/RB hybrid.

He also fumbled in college. And was often injured. His one elite skill - speed - is great, if he has a position.

RB? Nope - fumbles, too small to pick up a blitz, too small for all but a few specialty plays.
WR? Nope. Never played the position. Too small to beat press coverage. Not physical enough to fight for a pass.
Punt returner? Nope. Not good enough to do that task at Kent St. Doubt the NFL is less challenging.
Kickoff returner? Nope. The new NFL has so few returnable kicks that using a 3rd rounder for that task makes no sense.

It is therefore not that other draft picks bust; it is that his skill set made his failure potential vastly too high, and for a 3rd round pick - a pick with value, where good players are available - the pick made no sense.

Use a 7th? Yeah, sure, what the hell. But a 3rd, when the team had yet to help the CB position? No. Just ... no.

So, even if your guy busts out completely, as long as he was winning the popularity contest going in, your job is safe, cause you can defend the pick.

****, sounds like all you need to do to be a great gm is take the average of every draft board out there, and follow whatever is posted.

See, that's the problem with the whole thing, there will always be guys who look like they shouldn't be playing, who are, and guys who have that whole look like Tarzan play like Jane. You can justify it all you want, but if the dude isn't cutting it, the team still suffers, regardless of the stacks of draft mags that had him ranked number 1. I've never seen a magazine cover throw the winning pass in the SuperBowl.

Joe

 

[antdrewjosh]

Thats just it Archer was drafted where he was projected. 3rd to 4th round.

 

[ZACKB]

I wanted Bryant, or Brashaud Breeland with the Archer pick. We got Bryant, and Breeland starts at cb for the skins. That would have made our draft a lot better.

 

[Idioteque]

and since no one is going for an absolute stud at every pick, as someone stated, then what the **** is the argument about over Archer?

I guess the Chargers flip flopping on Leaf and Manning was nothing more than a coin toss.

unreal.

You struggle to follow these discussions.

Never did I say nobody is looking for an "absolute stud." What I said VERY clearly is that nobody is "guaranteed" to be a stud.

Unreal, indeed