I
Steelers select Dri Archer in Round 3
- Thread starter Atlsteelers
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,461
- Reaction score
- 1,152
- Points
- 113
We've already determined that "how they actually perform" in the NFL is not whats being judged. It's "how they are projected to perform". So, if you have a bunch of draft experts, all projecting that Matt Leinart is the most NFL ready, so you pick him to be your franchise qb, well, you're golden then. When the owner comes and says to the GM "why did you pick this douche who isn't getting me to any superbowls" all you need to say is "I am not paid to pick people who CAN play in the nfl, I am paid to pick people who are PROJECTED to be able to play in the nfl. Obviously, this pick was the most highly rated to be a starting caliber NFL quarterback, so I was correct. Just ask the people over at Steeler Nation, they agree.
Many GM's can rest easy tonight, knowing if their owners come to them demanding results, they have this site to back them up, it's not RESULTS, it's PROJECTIONS that they are paid to come up with.
Joe
no, clearly what you said is below:
and going by that, you shouldn't be bitching about anything other than drafting an Antonio Brown, LeVeon Bell, Ryan Shazier, etc, etc. since they do NOT fit your argument as being slam dunk, lock down, guaranteed studs.
Your flawed circular logic suggests we should not be looking for slam dunk, lock down, guaranteed studs, but rather guys who can just play the game. If that is the case, then there really is not a reason to have talent scouts since their job, per your flawed logic, is nothing more than asking if someone wants "fries wit dat".
All that aside, I do know what you mean - that we need to be drafting guys who have a better chance than the next guy to make it in the league. I'm not one of those who was sold on Archer, but I do think he needs a better shot at showcasing his limited skills.
and, for the record, the only guy I'd have taken instead has played in just two games and recorded a lone tackle - Jaylen Watkins.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Oh sweet ******* God.
"guaranteed stud"
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. You've gotta be ******* with me.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Correct, because I don't believe in clairvoyance. You have to go with what's projected. When you accepted your current job, I assume it was based on what you EXPECTED it to be, not what you SAW in a literal crystal ball.
Yes. This is correct. How could it not be?
That's all you COULD say. If you ****** up on Leinart, you ****** up on Leinart and **** happens. If you **** up frequently, then yes, you're bad at your job and should move on.
What Steeltime and I are trying desperately to explain to you is that Archer had awful projections. Your suggestion is that we just blindly throw picks at fast guys and hope they can "get into space" or some other buzzword that means "this limited player needs help." And the rationale is, "Well, everyone's a crapshoot, so why not guys?!?"
See, you're just turning everything into a giant strawman here. You've run out of stuff to complain about, so you're taking a shot in the dark.
What's alarming is that even your strawman makes Archer a horrid pick - he projected poorly AND has played poorly. He's somehow achieved less at this point than I had expected.
Last edited:
You expected him to not even to be able to catch a punt let alone return one.
Then I guess you truly are a dumbass. Find one place where I said Dri is the next coming of anything. I think he has talent but never was a "nuthugger" as you want to label me. My only comment is this thread is beyond stupid as the dude is a 3rd round rookie that missed several games due to injury and you and many others are calling him a bust. Maybe he will be but it is way too early to tell. Maybe you have a crystal ball and know something most don't. I will give Dri and any rookie (other than a 1st and maybe a 2nd round pick) at least 2 or 3 years before I give them a bust rating. It is just common sense based on football and based on how we typically never even use rookies. This year has been, by far, the anomaly. We are playing multiple rookies and I am all for giving them reps in their first year. I hope Dri does turn out to be a decent or even very good NFL player for us. To root for the opposite, as you obviously are, is just dumb.
you're the one who stated we shouldnt be looking to draft absolute studs, champ, not me.
just get drunk and play pin the tail on the draft pick, I guess.
The Patriots passed on Brady six times too...
Not necessarily. Every GM has bad picks. We all know that. If the GM has bad picks in rounds 1-3 regularly, he is looking for a new job. If the Steelers' GM selects players with NFL skills - size, speed, positional experience - and who fit the Steelers' model, then the GM's success rate is going to much better.
I have no problem taking a flyer on a guy like Archer - but not in the 3rd round. The Al Davis-led Raiders lived by the "draft speed, NFL skill set be damned" philosophy for years. They were horrible as a result. HORRIBLE.
The problem with your dismissive attitude towards projections and scouting is the following: That is what teams have when they draft. Those kids have not actually played in the NFL. They have no track record.
But every GM knew that Megatron was an incredible talent. Why? His skill set. His size, and speed, and catch radius, and hands. GM's knew that Andrew Luck was a great prospect. Why? Again, his skill set. Size, arm, experience, intelligence.
So if you have a choice between a guy who is 5'7", 178 lbs., with no defined position, who has a history of fumbling, and who has never played a typical NFL position, but who has elite speed, and a guy who has played CB in a passing conference for 2 years, with good size, good speed, and an NFL skill set, you take the latter.
Nobody suggests that drafting based on physical skills is never going to fail. Nobody suggests that selecting a player who does not fit the mold will always fail.
But the draft is a matter of maximizing potential. Troy Edwards was not likely to be a No. 1 receiver in the NFL due to his size and "ehh" speed. He was a good route runner and had good hands. But taking him was a risk due to his known limitations.
That draft featured an example of our discussion. Cowher wanted Kearse - a physical freak. His speed at that size? You say, "So what? Lots of Tarzans play like Janes, you don't know how they will turn out."
I say, "Yeah, sure, some Tarzans play like Janes, but if you keep drafting Janes, you will never get a Tarzan." Indeed, isn't the Kearse vs. Edwards comparison a role model for this debate? Kearse's production in college was good-not-great. Edwards caught a zillion passes in a gimmick offense. Mattered for **** - the physical skills dominated, and gimmick production disappeared.
I
Idioteque
Guest
I expected him to never become a punt returner, which he hasn't. If you truly think I was predicting him to LITERALLY fumble EVERY return, then you're a (bigger) idiot.
Do you wanna review your own Archer expectations?
I
Idioteque
Guest
Guaranteed was the word I used several times.
Steeltime, there was more to it behind the scenes in regards to the Kearse-Edwards pick.
Yeah, not trying to open old wounds, but just using that example to counter t-man's position that great physical talents sometimes bust, while less physically gifted players excel.
While that is certainly true, the Edwards-Kearse example shows the dangers of taking that approach as an organizational philosophy. Look at it this way: if a player ran a 4.2 40 (as did Archer) but was 6'1", 210 lbs., and had played WR in college, with no history of injury, do you take him before Archer?
I think the answer is "yes." Why is that so? Because his physical attributes make his ceiling much, much higher, and the fact he has no injury history and a defined position put him waaaaaay ahead of Archer.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Correct, because they don't exist.
I can name a thousand or so guaranteed studs that don't exist.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Can you do it before they're drafted? You have a crystal ******* ball?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
First off you are a liar. I've never called him a bust anywhere. Secondly, you never say anything football related about Archer. Just bullshit about "I think he could be" and "Wait and see". 3rd you are also a liar about what I root for. So basically we've established that you are a bold faced liar and a bullshitter. You obviously haven't read one word I've written in this thread. So you can take your dumb ignorant lying *** and **** off.
well, if you're not trying to draft/find the best stud available for your team, it doesn't much matter, now, does it?
well, if you're not trying to draft/find the best stud available for your team, it doesn't much matter, now, does it?
I
Idioteque
Guest
Oh my God.
you're the one saying they don't exist, not me and not your God. You.
apparently Peyton Manning doesn't exist.
neither did Hershel Walker.
nor Bo Jackson.
nor LaDainian Tomlinson.
nor Calvin Johnson.
nor ...
but when you're not looking for absolute, lock-down studs at positions, it doesn't matter.
apparently Peyton Manning doesn't exist.
neither did Hershel Walker.
nor Bo Jackson.
nor LaDainian Tomlinson.
nor Calvin Johnson.
nor ...
but when you're not looking for absolute, lock-down studs at positions, it doesn't matter.
- Status