Both the RB and WR coach have talked about him and ways they plan to utilize him.
Steelers select Dri Archer in Round 3
- Thread starter Atlsteelers
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 430
- Points
- 63
From the other thread, but it's relevant.
Everyone else on the field also played in the MAC, lol.
Through 5 years in college and 47 games (2009-2013, out 2011 with an injury) he played against 4 ranked teams:
2010:
Penn State (22)
2012:
Rutgers (18)
Nothern Illinois (19)
2013:
LSU (8)
Cumulative stats against ranked opponents:
37 Car, 120 Yds, 3.24 Avg, 2 TD
10 Rec, 140 Yds, 14 YPC,
Also, he's had 3 injuries. He's tiny, frail, and fumbles a lot. He's fast, but so is the rest of the NFL. The deck's stacked against him.
Everyone else on the field also played in the MAC, lol.
Through 5 years in college and 47 games (2009-2013, out 2011 with an injury) he played against 4 ranked teams:
2010:
Penn State (22)
2012:
Rutgers (18)
Nothern Illinois (19)
2013:
LSU (8)
Cumulative stats against ranked opponents:
37 Car, 120 Yds, 3.24 Avg, 2 TD
10 Rec, 140 Yds, 14 YPC,
Also, he's had 3 injuries. He's tiny, frail, and fumbles a lot. He's fast, but so is the rest of the NFL. The deck's stacked against him.
Rainey was fast but he had those long strides that didn't make him look as quick. Archer looks stupid fast and his cut moves are unreal, way better than Rainey. Archer looks like he can turn on a dime like nothing. Never thought Rainey had good cut moves for his size and speed. Not to say I am 100 % with the draft pick. I can see why they made it and the way the plan on using him. Line him up as a slot receiver, and kick returns.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
- Messages
- 879
- Reaction score
- 413
- Points
- 63
This is so " I can't believe they took bell in the second round" thread from last year.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 430
- Points
- 63
Not even close.
H
Hollywood Bags
Guest
And that's the reality of this stupid pick.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 459
- Points
- 63
Based on the "Chris Rainey Experiment", I don't like the pick at all HOWEVER (always trying to be an optimist) it is NOT his size that scares me. He really isn't much different than a lot of smurfs in the league. McCluster is certainly smaller and slower and weaker BUT somehow manages to make a Pro-Bowl last year and has missed less games with injury (6 in 4 seasons) than our own "lightweight" Manny Sanders (8 in 4 seasons). Sanders, while almost 3" taller is only (at most) 10# heavier (he is listed at 180#, though 186# at combine). Antonio Brown is 'slightly built' as well but seems to stay away from heavy contact. Ace Sanders would be another example of a 'diminutive' player who was successful in his transition. All are much less 'explosive', strong and fast as Archer. McCluster was taken at #36 while Ace was taken at #101 with Manny at #82. I would love to ***** about taking him so high in a deep draft of WRs but we still were able to get a 3rd round target in Bryant later.
Like Ace Sanders, I see Haley using Archer in situations (3rd down) as an option out of the backfield, the 'infamous WR screen' and sometimes as a slot WR where we have the HUGE Lance Moore at 5'-9" and 182#. Really no difference again (except the strength, speed and explosion). So, while I HOPE I don't see Archer blasting through the often clogged LOS like we did with Rainey and I don't like where they chose to draft the kid, I think he can be a very dynamic player at this level of competition. If he is in the backfield on 3rd down, is anyone really going to be able to assign an ILB on him? He will certainly take a DB who would otherwise be able to double one of our much bigger WRs like the 185# Brown or the 182# Moore right?
I hope they use him in the right way or YES, he was a wasted pick. If they line him up in the backfield to try to spread the defense, great. If they line him up in the slot to take a possible WR screen to the house, better; if they think he is a running back and they use him like LaRod Stephens-Howling (another beast at 185#), he will end up the same way, IMO.
Like Ace Sanders, I see Haley using Archer in situations (3rd down) as an option out of the backfield, the 'infamous WR screen' and sometimes as a slot WR where we have the HUGE Lance Moore at 5'-9" and 182#. Really no difference again (except the strength, speed and explosion). So, while I HOPE I don't see Archer blasting through the often clogged LOS like we did with Rainey and I don't like where they chose to draft the kid, I think he can be a very dynamic player at this level of competition. If he is in the backfield on 3rd down, is anyone really going to be able to assign an ILB on him? He will certainly take a DB who would otherwise be able to double one of our much bigger WRs like the 185# Brown or the 182# Moore right?
I hope they use him in the right way or YES, he was a wasted pick. If they line him up in the backfield to try to spread the defense, great. If they line him up in the slot to take a possible WR screen to the house, better; if they think he is a running back and they use him like LaRod Stephens-Howling (another beast at 185#), he will end up the same way, IMO.
We are the Raiders.. All we see is the 4.26... a few short years ago we got a guy like this for nothing in Stephan logan... we refused to use him outside of ST, then got rid of him cause he was too small and fumble prone, and now have been trying to draft that same guy every freaken year in the middle rounds...
We are the Raiders.. All we see is the 4.26... a few short years ago we got a guy like this for nothing in Stephan logan... we refused to use him outside of ST, then got rid of him cause he was too small and fumble prone, and now have been trying to draft that same guy every freaken year in the middle rounds...
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
- Messages
- 879
- Reaction score
- 413
- Points
- 63
Uh he played for freakin kent state have they won ten games in ten years?
You can knock the Mac all you want but a lot if great players came from there including BIG BEN and Moss
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 430
- Points
- 63
No ****, genius. Great players come from all over. The point I was making was that these comments like "the other players looked like they were in slow motion! Nobody was touching him!" hold less weight when you take into account that he was running around on the same field as a bunch of guys that will never sniff the NFL. That speed meant a lot less against his higher caliber opponents and is going to mean even less in the NFL where everyone's quicker.
Oh, and Kent State went 11-3 in 2012. Archer's one good season. However, that season looks even more like an aberration than it already does when you consider their 6' 248 FB also ran all over everyone that year.
Dri:
Trayion Durham:
CHAMPIONSHIP!
Last edited:
I remember a guy named Willie Parker that did alright. If it wasn't for him maybe we lose the SB to Seattle if he didn't rip that 74 yard off. Ben was terrible in that SB. I think Ben only played one really good one against the Cards. He was so so against the Packers. Picking Archer in the 3rd is a bit of reach and a surprise. I guess we are going to find out if it was an idiotic pick. Too bad we have nothing to compare with, what player the Steelers would have took in his place.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 430
- Points
- 63
FWP is taller by 3 inches, outweighed Dri by about 35 pounds, and was just as fast. Poor comparison.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
People don't seem to be able to wrap their minds around the fact that 170 lbs is different than 200 lbs or 190 lbs. Earl Campbell did a great job so obviously Archer will too because they are close to the same size...
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 430
- Points
- 63
So true. TMC mentioned it in another thread about how coach Mitchell said they want McCullers to drop from 350 to around 330 because it will make a huge difference. Again, like TMC said, that 20lb is only 5.7% of his weight, yet it's a "huge difference". 20 lbs on a 173 (according to nfl.com) guy is 11.6% of his weight, 10.3% once he's at 193.
I was using the 178 lb number I saw somewhere, so if it's actually 173, FWP at 212 had nearly 40 pounds on the guy, lol.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
Exactly. And the thing is you don't want him to gain much weight. If he doesn't run a 4.2 then he is of no value because he'll be just small with "good" speed. Which will get him killed. I just really don't know WTF they were thinking. Everybody talks about being more like SF and Seattle. Those are smash mouth teams. Not too many 170 lbers on either of those teams.
I
Idioteque
Guest
424 touches in five years (he was ineligible for 2011). Lookout for this guy! The NFL will probably take it easier on him than the MAC did. Most guys notice that football gets slower, easier, and less physical once they hit the NFL.
Some points to sum up the idiocy of this pick:
1. Archer isn't small. He isn't a scatback. He isn't Darren Sproles, DeSean Jackson, Willie Parker, or any other smallish NFL player. He's miniscule. He's smaller than Chris effing Rainey. As TMC has pointed out repeatedly, there have been zero successful RBs that weigh 173 ******* pounds. There have been zero successful NFL WRs his size, especially ones who were college RBs and have incredibly short arms and small hands. Being tiny is a huge issue, not only because it opens you up to more injury concerns (which Archer has constantly had), but also because..
2. Sorry to break this, but NFL receivers cannot simply "run past" NFL DBs. If that's how it worked, Olympian and Florida WR John Capel would have made some Pro Bowls, and Donald Driver probably wouldn't have caught 700 passes. DBs do not just watch the receiver run and try to run next to him. They don't stand in awe of the speed of the WR in front of them and just struggle to nip at their heels. They shove them at the LOS. They position themselves in the way of the receiver so as to cut off their route. When the ball comes, they get physical and control the receiver while swatting at the ball.
Consider this: Archer ran 40 yards in 4.26 in shorts with no defenders. Now add full padding, eleven NFL defenders, and a route that needs to be run. Now factor in that, after the snap, the QB typically releases the ball in less than 3 seconds, maybe 4 if it's a go route. Now factor in Archer's constant injuries and fumbling tendencies. Then explain exactly how Archer is going to just sprint to daylight, football in hand, while eleven NFL defenders bend over and suck air.
3. Where is he going to play? This isn't Madden; actual football involves things beyond the ballcarrier. You wanna put Archer in as third-down back? Good, let's have him pick up a blitzing Terrell Suggs in the open field. Want him in the slot? Sure, let's watch him fight off the jam from a 5'10 200# cornerback and use his body to shield him from the ball, then catch it and absorb the hit. Let's have him block downfield on screens and short throws. You want him to return kickoffs? There aren't that many anymore. Return punts? He's never done that and is an injury and fumble case; not sure I want him catching the ball with three sprinting defenders in his face, especially since he has no experience doing it.
Obviously, these are not options. He's not going to pick up the rush, and he's not going to block downfield. So when he's on the field, the defense knows he's going to get the ball. Kinda erases most or all of the speed advantage and limits our playbook. Now, we've spent a 3rd on Chris Rainey II.
All of the "explosiveness!" and "versatility!" and "open space!" being talked about is a moot point if a guy (a) can't get on the field due to fumbles and a lack of offensive ability, and (b) can't secure the ball. You guys keep seeing visions of Eric Metcalf and Darren Sproles in your head, but they are not comparable players. The closest comparison to Archer is absolutely Chris Rainey, who looked dead each time he was hit. Then he usually fumbled for good measure.
4. Archer's size isn't the only knock on him, by a long shot. Even at 5'10 190, he's a big question mark. He fumbles a ton. More than Chris Rainey. He's constantly injured. He was academically ineligible in 2011. He doesn't have a position; he was a part-time RB and gimmick slot WR in school. His only strength - returning kickoffs, not punts - is being rapidly phased out of the NFL; kickoffs will probably be gone within five years. There's no way he can return NFL punts.
5. There are ramifications to wasting this pick. I know we all say, "Well, we filled all our holes later in the draft, so we're fine risking that third!!" Why? Because we drafted some guys late? We took roughly the #15 OT late in the fifth round. We took roughly the #25 CB in the 5th as well. And we snagged a 7th-round NT that probably won't make the team. And that sews up our holes? Do you guys really think that we're now set at CB and OT and NT? I like Shaq Richardson as a late-round developmental CB, but what are the realistic odds he ever becomes a starting-caliber CB for us? 5%? 10%? If that? A third-round pick is immensely valuable, especially when you have holes throughout your depth chart.
Some points to sum up the idiocy of this pick:
1. Archer isn't small. He isn't a scatback. He isn't Darren Sproles, DeSean Jackson, Willie Parker, or any other smallish NFL player. He's miniscule. He's smaller than Chris effing Rainey. As TMC has pointed out repeatedly, there have been zero successful RBs that weigh 173 ******* pounds. There have been zero successful NFL WRs his size, especially ones who were college RBs and have incredibly short arms and small hands. Being tiny is a huge issue, not only because it opens you up to more injury concerns (which Archer has constantly had), but also because..
2. Sorry to break this, but NFL receivers cannot simply "run past" NFL DBs. If that's how it worked, Olympian and Florida WR John Capel would have made some Pro Bowls, and Donald Driver probably wouldn't have caught 700 passes. DBs do not just watch the receiver run and try to run next to him. They don't stand in awe of the speed of the WR in front of them and just struggle to nip at their heels. They shove them at the LOS. They position themselves in the way of the receiver so as to cut off their route. When the ball comes, they get physical and control the receiver while swatting at the ball.
Consider this: Archer ran 40 yards in 4.26 in shorts with no defenders. Now add full padding, eleven NFL defenders, and a route that needs to be run. Now factor in that, after the snap, the QB typically releases the ball in less than 3 seconds, maybe 4 if it's a go route. Now factor in Archer's constant injuries and fumbling tendencies. Then explain exactly how Archer is going to just sprint to daylight, football in hand, while eleven NFL defenders bend over and suck air.
3. Where is he going to play? This isn't Madden; actual football involves things beyond the ballcarrier. You wanna put Archer in as third-down back? Good, let's have him pick up a blitzing Terrell Suggs in the open field. Want him in the slot? Sure, let's watch him fight off the jam from a 5'10 200# cornerback and use his body to shield him from the ball, then catch it and absorb the hit. Let's have him block downfield on screens and short throws. You want him to return kickoffs? There aren't that many anymore. Return punts? He's never done that and is an injury and fumble case; not sure I want him catching the ball with three sprinting defenders in his face, especially since he has no experience doing it.
Obviously, these are not options. He's not going to pick up the rush, and he's not going to block downfield. So when he's on the field, the defense knows he's going to get the ball. Kinda erases most or all of the speed advantage and limits our playbook. Now, we've spent a 3rd on Chris Rainey II.
All of the "explosiveness!" and "versatility!" and "open space!" being talked about is a moot point if a guy (a) can't get on the field due to fumbles and a lack of offensive ability, and (b) can't secure the ball. You guys keep seeing visions of Eric Metcalf and Darren Sproles in your head, but they are not comparable players. The closest comparison to Archer is absolutely Chris Rainey, who looked dead each time he was hit. Then he usually fumbled for good measure.
4. Archer's size isn't the only knock on him, by a long shot. Even at 5'10 190, he's a big question mark. He fumbles a ton. More than Chris Rainey. He's constantly injured. He was academically ineligible in 2011. He doesn't have a position; he was a part-time RB and gimmick slot WR in school. His only strength - returning kickoffs, not punts - is being rapidly phased out of the NFL; kickoffs will probably be gone within five years. There's no way he can return NFL punts.
5. There are ramifications to wasting this pick. I know we all say, "Well, we filled all our holes later in the draft, so we're fine risking that third!!" Why? Because we drafted some guys late? We took roughly the #15 OT late in the fifth round. We took roughly the #25 CB in the 5th as well. And we snagged a 7th-round NT that probably won't make the team. And that sews up our holes? Do you guys really think that we're now set at CB and OT and NT? I like Shaq Richardson as a late-round developmental CB, but what are the realistic odds he ever becomes a starting-caliber CB for us? 5%? 10%? If that? A third-round pick is immensely valuable, especially when you have holes throughout your depth chart.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,571
- Reaction score
- 6,246
- Points
- 113
Great post kesler, thanks for putting things in perspective!
Can't act, can't sing. Can dance a little."
That's how the guy who gave Fred Astaire his Hollywood screen test rated the greatest hoofer of all time. Debussy's timeless "Clair de Lune" was described as "ugly to the ears," by the most respected Parisian critic of the time. "Fiddler on the Roof" was described as "nothing special" by the Variety stringer who reviewed its off-Broadway opening. And Rex Reed and most of the other jerks who review movies panned the greatest movie of all time, "A Christmas Story." (They just hated producer Bob Clark, because he did those Porky's movies and Reed would never know what to do with a Red Ryder BB gun, anyway).
But my favorite review of all time was Vito Stellino's review of the Pittsburgh Steelers1974 draft in the Post-Gazette.
"The Steelers seem to have come out of the first five rounds of the draft appreciably strengthened at wide receiver but nowhere else. They didn't get a tight end. They didn't get a punter. They didn't get an offensive tackle who might've shored up what could well become a weakness. What they did get was Swann, who seems to be a sure-pop to help; Lambert, who figures to be the No. 5 linebacker if he pans out; and three question marks."
Guess he didn't think much of that Stallworth kid or that 5th round pick out of Wisconsin, Webster.
You never know. Great picks can meet with awful misfortune, like Gabe Rivera or the Penguins' Michel Briere. A tragic car crash ended Rivera's career. Another ended Briere's life. So many other seemingly great choices have met with career ending injuries.
Often a great quarterback choice ends up with a terrible team, and is beset by injuries because the team can't protect him. Other good quarterbacks - guys like Matt Cassell - have the luxury of sitting on the bench and developing behind great quarterbacks....and they become great value when they are either plugged in to sub for the injured star or traded away for a first or second round draft pick.
And sometimes, guys who look good in college turn out to be great when the hit the pros. Yep, you really can "coach 'em up." And guys in the locker room play a big part in attitude adjustment.
The Steelers didn't get their punter in the 1974 draft, but they actually did get a tight end named Randy Grossman who today is the proud owner of four Super Bowl rings.
The NFL Player Selection Meeting (draft) is sort of like Christmas, are we are all like Ralphie - waiting to see if we got our Red Ryder BB gun or that shutdown corner we've been asking Santa to bring. We love it. It's fun, and it's fun to see what the other kids got. But I never forget Vito Stellino's instant analysis of the greatest draft ever. And, remember, Vito was a helluva football writer.
And when I read and hear the pronouncements of all the "experts" on the blogs and on NFLTV and ESPN, I recall the wisdom of the late, great ABC News economics correspondent, Dan Cordtz. Every so often, Dan would come in to do radio reports on the lastest jobless figures or factory output numbers. Really boring stuff, but sometimes very important. He would do a 30-second report, giving the numbers and a brief explanation. Then we were required to do an informal QnA, where he would explain the figures in layman's language.
Invariably, my question to Dan would be, "what's it all mean, Dan?" And invariably, the bald-headed, moustachioed sage would do a countdown and give the same answer, "Three, two, one,.....It don't mean ****."
Dan's gone now, but his answer still stands with so much of the post-draft analysis.
That's how the guy who gave Fred Astaire his Hollywood screen test rated the greatest hoofer of all time. Debussy's timeless "Clair de Lune" was described as "ugly to the ears," by the most respected Parisian critic of the time. "Fiddler on the Roof" was described as "nothing special" by the Variety stringer who reviewed its off-Broadway opening. And Rex Reed and most of the other jerks who review movies panned the greatest movie of all time, "A Christmas Story." (They just hated producer Bob Clark, because he did those Porky's movies and Reed would never know what to do with a Red Ryder BB gun, anyway).
But my favorite review of all time was Vito Stellino's review of the Pittsburgh Steelers1974 draft in the Post-Gazette.
"The Steelers seem to have come out of the first five rounds of the draft appreciably strengthened at wide receiver but nowhere else. They didn't get a tight end. They didn't get a punter. They didn't get an offensive tackle who might've shored up what could well become a weakness. What they did get was Swann, who seems to be a sure-pop to help; Lambert, who figures to be the No. 5 linebacker if he pans out; and three question marks."
Guess he didn't think much of that Stallworth kid or that 5th round pick out of Wisconsin, Webster.
You never know. Great picks can meet with awful misfortune, like Gabe Rivera or the Penguins' Michel Briere. A tragic car crash ended Rivera's career. Another ended Briere's life. So many other seemingly great choices have met with career ending injuries.
Often a great quarterback choice ends up with a terrible team, and is beset by injuries because the team can't protect him. Other good quarterbacks - guys like Matt Cassell - have the luxury of sitting on the bench and developing behind great quarterbacks....and they become great value when they are either plugged in to sub for the injured star or traded away for a first or second round draft pick.
And sometimes, guys who look good in college turn out to be great when the hit the pros. Yep, you really can "coach 'em up." And guys in the locker room play a big part in attitude adjustment.
The Steelers didn't get their punter in the 1974 draft, but they actually did get a tight end named Randy Grossman who today is the proud owner of four Super Bowl rings.
The NFL Player Selection Meeting (draft) is sort of like Christmas, are we are all like Ralphie - waiting to see if we got our Red Ryder BB gun or that shutdown corner we've been asking Santa to bring. We love it. It's fun, and it's fun to see what the other kids got. But I never forget Vito Stellino's instant analysis of the greatest draft ever. And, remember, Vito was a helluva football writer.
And when I read and hear the pronouncements of all the "experts" on the blogs and on NFLTV and ESPN, I recall the wisdom of the late, great ABC News economics correspondent, Dan Cordtz. Every so often, Dan would come in to do radio reports on the lastest jobless figures or factory output numbers. Really boring stuff, but sometimes very important. He would do a 30-second report, giving the numbers and a brief explanation. Then we were required to do an informal QnA, where he would explain the figures in layman's language.
Invariably, my question to Dan would be, "what's it all mean, Dan?" And invariably, the bald-headed, moustachioed sage would do a countdown and give the same answer, "Three, two, one,.....It don't mean ****."
Dan's gone now, but his answer still stands with so much of the post-draft analysis.
The one nit I have to pick is the idea that kickoffs are being phased out. May happen sometime soon, may not. Heinz Field is not in Denver. A stud return man - one who'll return the ball regardless of whether it's 5 or 7 or 9 yards deep - is going to get plenty of opportunities in 2014 and who knows after that...
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,884
- Reaction score
- 963
- Points
- 113
Willie Parker was an undrafted free agent, he didn't cost us any pick let alone a three. The rest of the draft as a whole was good for me. Just right there, right then they should have been looking for more than a situational player. There's nothing more to it for me than that.
Very well put. We're not in a position to spend a #3 on a luxury pick, not in such an excellent draft.
Last edited:
- Status