Steelers select Dri Archer in Round 3

[blitzburghv5]

I think the issue with Kordell was partly Kordell (mental) but it was also coaching AWAY from his gifts/talents. He was elite with his legs....remember the 80-yrd drop back and run he had vs Baltimore on the road. Outran EVERYONE ? ....Kordell was NOT a conventional pocket passer. We tried to MAKE him a pocket passer. We still made, how many Conference title games mis-using his talents ?

I just believe he wasnt properly used. Nowdays, some coaches understand how to use talent like that (on occasions)

 

[Supersteeler]

Didn't Kordell keep INSISTING that he was capable of being a pocket passer and was going to be one? He absolutely hated the Slash thing with a passion, I remember that much for sure.

 

[blitzburghv5]

Didn't Kordell keep INSISTING that he was capable of being a pocket passer and was going to be one? He absolutely hated the Slash thing with a passion, I remember that much for sure.

He wanted PLAY the position of quarterback and not be pigeonholed as a utility player .He INSISTED he was a QUARTERBACK...he embraced the slash role the first couple of seasons but ultimately wanted to be quarterback. He punted a few times in the era of Slash and surprisingly did that well (once he punted and pinned the ball at the 1-2 yrd line)

I dont think we ever designed plays that utilized his legs and agility like bootlegs or rollouts.

 

[FordFairLane]

I'm encouraged by the news however the same type of news has come out about a ton of rookies over the years. I just didn't like the draft pick. I never said that he was a bust or was never going to contribute in any way. I wanted to take someone that has an opportunity to start. Archer can never do that. He's never going to be a starting WR or RB.

So by that logic Darren Sproles is a wasted pick. He doesn't start but he contributes and puts a new wrinkle in the offense that the opposing defense has to account for.

 

[t-man]

So by that logic Darren Sproles is a wasted pick. He doesn't start but he contributes and puts a new wrinkle in the offense that the opposing defense has to account for.

As is every guy picked as a change of pace RB in those "RB by committe" situations. As is every return specialist, as is every wr who comes in for the 4 and 5 wide sets, etc.

Joe

 

[Vader]

Wow. A little defensive, eh? You got caught *****. Just admit it and move on.

No you lied you ******* twit. Anybody that can ******* read knows you lied.

 

[Vader]

wait. hold up a second.
what?

he's using a quote of yours ... something you admit to saying... that is interpreted as something you didn't say ... but you said it ... and admit to saying it ... but it wasn't what you said.

are you a politician?

This isn't very difficult. I made it very clear that I didn't use an absolute when talking about Archer like "he could never make it". I said that most on here "including myself" said that he was small, short and fumbled a lot. I know you people hate me but it's ridiculous when people lie about something that is plain as day.

 

[Litos]

This isn't very difficult. I made it very clear that I didn't use an absolute when talking about Archer like "he could never make it". I said that most on here "including myself" said that he was small, short and fumbled a lot. I know you people hate me but it's ridiculous when people lie about something that is plain as day.

I don't hate you, I could even buy you a beer

Cheers

 

[Vader]

So by that logic Darren Sproles is a wasted pick. He doesn't start but he contributes and puts a new wrinkle in the offense that the opposing defense has to account for.

Sproles was a 4th round pick (picked 33 spots after Archer was selected) in a draft much less deep than this previous draft. The Chargers were also coming off a 12-4 season not an 8-8 season for the 2nd straight year. He was a luxury pick at the end of the 4th round. The Steelers have very little depth at many areas. They are razor thin at OLB, OL and CB.

 

[Vader]

I don't hate you, I could even buy you a beer

Cheers

Cheers!...

 

[Superman]

This isn't very difficult. I made it very clear that I didn't use an absolute when talking about Archer like "he could never make it". I said that most on here "including myself" said that he was small, short and fumbled a lot. I know you people hate me but it's ridiculous when people lie about something that is plain as day.

Anakin, I don't hate you. I reserve that for our muslim friends. I'm just ******* with you about this.

 

[antdrewjosh]

Sproles was a 4th round pick (picked 33 spots after Archer was selected) in a draft much less deep than this previous draft. The Chargers were also coming off a 12-4 season not an 8-8 season for the 2nd straight year. He was a luxury pick at the end of the 4th round. The Steelers have very little depth at many areas. They are razor thin at OLB, OL and CB.

So if they have Archer rated higher then players at those positions would you rather they take the value or the need?

 

[Vader]

Anakin, I don't hate you. I reserve that for our muslim friends. I'm just ******* with you about this.

How do you know I'm not Muslim?




jk

 

[Vader]

So if they have Archer rated higher then players at those positions would you rather they take the value or the need?

I take value almost always. I didn't see their board. I remember dobre having a break down of it but I don't remember where they had the draft picks ranked. It would be interesting to see.

 

[t-man]

Sproles was a 4th round pick (picked 33 spots after Archer was selected) in a draft much less deep than this previous draft. The Chargers were also coming off a 12-4 season not an 8-8 season for the 2nd straight year. He was a luxury pick at the end of the 4th round. The Steelers have very little depth at many areas. They are razor thin at OLB, OL and CB.

If only we were as good at this whole "football" thing as the mighty mother ******* Chargers.

Maybe someday.

Joe

 

[antdrewjosh]

Well its been said they didnt like any DBs after Gaines was taken other then Richardson whom they liked but felt could be had later. Its been talked about they considered taking Bryant there but got him anyway in the 4th.

 

[Vader]

If only we were as good at this whole "football" thing as the mighty mother ******* Chargers.

Maybe someday.

Joe

I'm comparing two draft picks not the entire teams.

Well its been said they didnt like any DBs after Gaines was taken other then Richardson whom they liked but felt could be had later. Its been talked about they considered taking Bryant there but got him anyway in the 4th.

Like I said, I have no idea who they had slated for that spot. But surely they had more than 2 positions in mind.

 

[t-man]

I'm comparing two draft picks not the entire teams.



Like I said, I have no idea who they had slated for that spot. But surely they had more than 2 positions in mind.

You're comparing both, when you make the comparison. You're saying they chose better in that instance, than did we this year. You're also doing so, without ever seeing the kid play a down of football, I might add, again. In addition, you're implying that he might be worth a spot that x positions later, but certainly, oh woe and my, not where WE were foolish enough to select him.

No one questioned the validity of the Matt Leinart pick when he was taken a few years back. Everyone agreed, he would be the safest bet at qb. That, too, was before our old buddy Matt took an NFL snap.

They all look like geniuses now, don't they?

Joe

 

[t-man]

Oh, and I'd have a beer with anyone here on the board, though were I to insult most of you the way I do my friends, I doubt we'd make it past one beer. Hell, my favorite greeting for my closest friend is always "****, how to you keep getting uglier every time I see you". At any rate, I do enjoy these discussions, I just keep getting shocked at how much people put "round value" and "pick value" into things once a guy has a team and a uniform. Sometimes you think you're making a great pick, and everyone agrees, and then it turns to ****, other times, the reverse happens, and more often than not, it's somewhere in the middle. Time will tell, but as long as we end up back in the playoffs this year, we're doing something right.

Joe

 

[Black & Gold Bleeder]

I could even buy you a beer

I could drown him with one.

 

[Vader]

You're comparing both, when you make the comparison. You're saying they chose better in that instance, than did we this year. You're also doing so, without ever seeing the kid play a down of football, I might add, again. In addition, you're implying that he might be worth a spot that x positions later, but certainly, oh woe and my, not where WE were foolish enough to select him.

No one questioned the validity of the Matt Leinart pick when he was taken a few years back. Everyone agreed, he would be the safest bet at qb. That, too, was before our old buddy Matt took an NFL snap.

They all look like geniuses now, don't they?

Joe

Nope, I'm not comparing the organizations. You can compare different draft picks without comparing the history of the franchises. IF you didn't do that then every pick the Steelers made would be better than every pick the rest of the league made right? So the Steelers selecting Troy Edwards is a better pick than the Colts drafting Manning or Luck.

Also I didn't like the Leinart pick. Many on here didn't. All teams miss on draft picks. But that isn't the issue. I just didn't like this draft pick because of all the reasons I've already outlined.

 

[antdrewjosh]

Here is a throwback name that I hope Archer can be as good as James Brooks.

 

[Stryker]

Now since we got Bryant in the 4th and many say Archer would have been available in the 4th, would everyone like the picks better if Bryant was taken in the 3rd and Archer was taken in the 4th?

It seems to me that 'value' is one of the largest points of contention with this pick. I only care if the pick can play football at this level.

 

[Supersteeler]

Now since we got Bryant in the 4th and many say Archer would have been available in the 4th, would everyone like the picks better if Bryant was taken in the 3rd and Archer was taken in the 4th?

It seems to me that 'value' is one of the largest points of contention with this pick. I only care if the pick can play football at this level.

That's the great irony. The people bitching that we should have taken Bryant at the end of the 3rd instead of Archer. Well other teams obviously didn't think Bryant was worth that pick because he lasted another 15 to 20 picks for us to take him in the 4th. Who's to say Archer would've still been there where Bryant was taken? I mean Archer had at least a 4th Round grade on him and we basically took him as a 4th Round pick. 132 pages later I still don't get the public outcry.

 

[t-man]

This reminds me of all the talk we had about Woodley and Timmons, where we all agreed had we flip flopped those picks, everyone would have been happy. How about now? Which guy is still contributing to the team, and which one is not? Are all those people running into this thread to say they were wrong to think Woodley was worth the first round pick after all? This whole "value for where picked" discussion is useless as **** on a bull after the fact, you get x number of guys, some are starters, some don't make it, and you won't ever know what the ACTUAL value was till those players hang em up. And THAT is the fact of it, that's why we can keep this thread open for the next 10 years (or however long this kid can play football) and we won't know who was really right till then. And even then, it can be somewhat debated, depending on what stat/measure you use. There are statistical marvels at qb and other positions who end up with no rings, and others who get there and win the big game, but it might be due to a system, or a shift in the nfl rules.


Joe