Steelers select Dri Archer in Round 3

[Idioteque]

One dude doesn't really make it much of a case. In general, Cope is right.

He's not right at all. He told Zack he was lying, that he actually DIDN'T want Bashaun Breeland, that he's full of ****, etc. Cope figured that, since he had never heard of Breeland, nobody had, so surely Zack was making it up.

If you seriously think there aren't a lot of hindsight ******** (pun!!) that come in later with these "I wanted this guy" bullshit, you are willfully blind. Some of them are here. Maybe they thought it, but they never said a word, so I tend to be negative about their "brilliance".

Yes, that would be a douchey thing to do. But I don't think these people are on here pleading for everyone to see their "brilliance." I don't see why everyone is held to task for their opinions and predictions to the point that they MUST go on record in written, notarized triplicate 60 business days before the draft, or whatever. Are we trying to win a "guess the draft" contest?

Many posters expressed a general dislike of the Archer pick and offered general alternatives - a CB, a pass rusher, an actual WR, etc. That's totally fair. Not everyone follows the draft closely enough to know 30 CBs inside and out, but anyone with eyeballs can tell we had a poor CB depth chart and very little pass rush. Now we're busting guys' balls months later because they didn't provide specific names prior to the draft?

The problem with my list, is that it is pretty broad. I listed at least 5 (although not by name, just position, I think, and I was too bored to search through the thread for it).

If Breeland turns out great and my other 4 suck ***, I didn't do much prognosticating.

That's how I feel. I was sky-high on a few guys - Ellington, Rashaad Reynolds, Tiny Richardson, Nevin Lawson, etc. But that's not the point. The point is that I wanted other, actual positions to be addressed. Whether my specific handful of names become good, bad, or average is irrelevant to the point that Archer was a bad pick.

I'm not interested in anyone looking back five years from now and muttering in awe, "Wooow, Idioteque was sooo right about Nevin Lawson." Never my intention when I've bashed the Archer pick or cobbled together my top 10 guys.

 

[Hines57]

Some people need to get over themselves, you know who you are.

 

[Vader]

One dude doesn't really make it much of a case. In general, Cope is right.

If you seriously think there aren't a lot of hindsight ******** (pun!!) that come in later with these "I wanted this guy" bullshit, you are willfully blind. Some of them are here. Maybe they thought it, but they never said a word, so I tend to be negative about their "brilliance".

The problem with my list, is that it is pretty broad. I listed at least 5 (although not by name, just position, I think, and I was too bored to search through the thread for it).

If Breeland turns out great and my other 4 suck ***, I didn't do much prognosticating.

No, Cope is wrong because he called out the ONE guy that did say it. And there maybe more but I'm not going to look it up now. I talked about positions not individual players just like you. I have issues with their board if they stuck to it. Having Archer rated so high when you had other needs is mind blowing. If Seattle or Denver had him targeted in the 3rd I could understand it because they don't need depth at almost every position or starters for that matter.

 

[ark steel]

No, Cope is wrong because he called out the ONE guy that did say it. And there maybe more but I'm not going to look it up now. I talked about positions not individual players just like you. I have issues with their board if they stuck to it. Having Archer rated so high when you had other needs is mind blowing. If Seattle or Denver had him targeted in the 3rd I could understand it because they don't need depth at almost every position or starters for that matter.

Oh. Didn't realize who he quoted. Thought it was someone else. Although, in general, I still agree with Cope.

 

[t-man]

Full disclosure here, just a little insight into the way my mind works.

A while back, on a Saturday afternoon, my wife said "I want to do something" I said "Ok, what do you want to do" she said, "I don't know, but I don't want to just sit here till bedtime".

I told her it makes no sense to say you want to do something, but then not have any idea what you want to do. If you don't have SOMETHING in mind, then the information that you want to do SOMETHING is worthless to me, since without WHAT that something is, there isn't anything I can do about it.

She still, to this day maintains that it's valid to say it, and I still, to this day, think she's nuts. Love her to death, but on this one point, she's nuts.

I brought up this very post to her, and she pointed out that it's pretty much the same discussion, but on football terms. So, to all of you who wanted "SOMEONE ELSE" but didn't know who, you're as batshit as my wife. haha.

Joe

 

[ark steel]

Whether my specific handful of names become good, bad, or average is irrelevant to the point that Archer was a bad pick.

If everyone I would have picked turns out worse than Archer, it doesn't say a whole lot for my credibility that the Archer pick was a bad pick, at the time. How Archer performs over the next several years is the ONLY determination of whether he was a good or bad pick.

My assumption, as always, is that the FO knows more about the particular situation than I do. Maybe they saw something in Archer that I wouldn't have. I didn't see anything in him because I didn't look at any RB's. Looking back after the pick, I was OK with it as a wait and see. Seeing that others had Archer rated in the same approximate position leads me to believe that the FO wasn't just pulling a name out of their *****. Could be that the others were wrong too. We don't know.

 

[Idioteque]

If everyone I would have picked turns out worse than Archer, it doesn't say a whole lot for my credibility that the Archer pick was a bad pick, at the time. How Archer performs over the next several years is the ONLY determination of whether he was a good or bad pick.

There's a big, big difference between saying "Archer was a bad pick" and "fourth-rounder Nevin Lawson will return second-round value." One is a general statement based on a lot of observable data, the other is incredibly specific. It's like the difference between saying "Green Bay is a major Super Bowl contender" and "the Packers will beat the Broncos 34-24 in the Super Bowl."

Besides, I could still be right about both. I could give a list of 100 players I'd rather have taken and ZERO could pan out. But if Archer sucks, I'd STILL be right about Archer sucking. Illustrating the difference between a general statement and an ultra-specific declaration.

I didn't see anything in him because I didn't look at any RB's.

No sweat there; he's not a RB

Looking back after the pick, I was OK with it as a wait and see. Seeing that others had Archer rated in the same approximate position leads me to believe that the FO wasn't just pulling a name out of their *****. Could be that the others were wrong too. We don't know.

True, but my issue was that not all projections are the same. The Broncos, Steelers, and Jets all had different needs and therefore much different valuations for a third-round pick. The Broncos could afford taking a swing on a scatback/returner in the third; the Steelers and Jets had declining rosters and needed every precious pick to fill many holes. Archer may have been a 3rd/4th prospect for one team but a late-round dart throw for another.

 

[Idioteque]

Full disclosure here, just a little insight into the way my mind works.

A while back, on a Saturday afternoon, my wife said "I want to do something" I said "Ok, what do you want to do" she said, "I don't know, but I don't want to just sit here till bedtime".

I told her it makes no sense to say you want to do something, but then not have any idea what you want to do. If you don't have SOMETHING in mind, then the information that you want to do SOMETHING is worthless to me, since without WHAT that something is, there isn't anything I can do about it.

She still, to this day maintains that it's valid to say it, and I still, to this day, think she's nuts. Love her to death, but on this one point, she's nuts.

I brought up this very post to her, and she pointed out that it's pretty much the same discussion, but on football terms. So, to all of you who wanted "SOMEONE ELSE" but didn't know who, you're as batshit as my wife. haha.

Joe

What about those who wanted a CB or a pass rusher? Are they really douchebags because they didn't give specific names?

 

[Troglodyte]

Just pretend that Bryant was the 3rd round pick and Archer was the 4th round pick and get on with your lives.

 

[Hines57]

Just pretend that Bryant was the 3rd round pick and Archer was the 4th round pick and get on with your lives.

Think of all the guys we could have drafted in the 4th instead of Archer (dumb ***** on the board)

 

[Idioteque]

I hate all these dumb ***** on the board. I'm going to post this repeatedly (dumber ***** on the board)

 

[Troglodyte]

Think of all the guys we could have drafted in the 4th instead of Archer (dumb ***** on the board)

We could have drafted.Dan Marino instead of Gabe Rivera!
The Steelers might have drafted a CB who would have contributed right away as a rookie instead of Archer or they might have drafted the next Curtis Brown or Ricardo Coclough.

 

[Idioteque]

We could have drafted.Dan Marino instead of Gabe Rivera!
The Steelers might have drafted a CB who would have contributed right away as a rookie instead of Archer or they might have drafted the next Curtis Brown or Ricardo Coclough.

Instead they took the next Chris Rainey, with Dexter McCluster's upside.

 

[t-man]

What about those who wanted a CB or a pass rusher? Are they really douchebags because they didn't give specific names?

Well, without mentioning who, it seems a bit worthless, since had they done so we could have ended up with someone who is great at that position, or someone who completely sucks at it. So, do you take archer, who to date has gotten this team a few yards, or a project corner, who never plays and gets cut without ever seeing the field in 2 years. And if you do, is that somehow a better pick, because at least he was a corner, even though long term he contributed zero to the team?

Joe

 

[Stryker]

Egads! A soothsayer! Oh wise one, please spare us peasants from your obviously terrible powers! Verily, you must be a god amongst men to read others minds! Hark! I say to you all do not anger this pompous, NO NO I mean magnificent being!

*grovel*


YE BLACK KNIGHT HATH SPOKEN!

I like this guy. He gets it.

20-30 seconds of searching found that ZACKB did indeed want Breeland on draft day.

Goddamn, that left a nasty red handprint of truth across your face.

Thanks for the research. I don't mind being wrong, and it doesn't hurt my psyche to be wrong. I know it matters for some people who post on the internet, but not me!

Actually I'm pretty big on the draft and when our pick came up, and we needed a corner, I read up on Breeland. I wanted him or Bryant. I'm happy we at least got Bryant.

Sorry for coming down hard about Breeland, Zack. I must have forgotten it about 100+ pages ago. Though I do get miffed when people say we should have taken Bryant in the 3rd, when we got him in the 4th.

And like Trog stated, how much of an issue would this still be if Bryant was taken with our Comp 3rd pick and Archer was taken with our 4th pick? Thoughts??

 

[Idioteque]

Well, without mentioning who, it seems a bit worthless, since had they done so we could have ended up with someone who is great at that position, or someone who completely sucks at it. So, do you take archer, who to date has gotten this team a few yards, or a project corner, who never plays and gets cut without ever seeing the field in 2 years. And if you do, is that somehow a better pick, because at least he was a corner, even though long term he contributed zero to the team?

Joe

Depends. Going on your hypothetical of a CB who never plays and gets cut without ever contributing, then no, it would be a wasted pick. But assuming it's a wasted CB pick vs. a wasted Archer pick, then yes, I'll respect the CB pick more. At least it was spent on a player with an NFL profile. No, it wouldn't net us anything, but it would make me feel better about where the FO's head is.

 

[Idioteque]

Thanks for the research. I don't mind being wrong, and it doesn't hurt my psyche to be wrong. I know it matters for some people who post on the internet, but not me!

Thank ark for the research.

Being wrong is one thing; we're all wrong all the time. But jumping his **** and calling him a liar when you have no idea what you're talking about.. that's lame.

Sorry for coming down hard about Breeland, Zack. I must have forgotten it about 100+ pages ago.

With all due respect.. that's why it pays to research a little before launching into "You're a liar and just trying to look smart!!" All it took was a search for the word Breeland.

And like Trog stated, how much of an issue would this still be if Bryant was taken with our Comp 3rd pick and Archer was taken with our 4th pick? Thoughts??

My thought is that we would have wasted a fourth instead of a third. I'm not quibbling over Archer because I saw him as a 4th that we took a round too early. Personally, I saw Archer as a late-round shot in the dark, not a mid-rounder for a rebuilding team.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

Out of the 11 starters that put up those 51 points the last game 9 of the 11 was drafted by Tombert. With Ben and Heath being the exceptions. You add in Gilbert and Bryant and that is 11-13 drafted by them. So I really don't think the drafting has been that bad it has been the execution. Just my .02 worth.

 

[Idioteque]

Out of the 11 starters that put up those 51 points the last game 9 of the 11 was drafted by Tombert. With Ben and Heath being the exceptions. You add in Gilbert and Bryant and that is 11-13 drafted by them. So I really don't think the drafting has been that bad it has been the execution. Just my .02 worth.

Well he's been here for 8 drafts. I can only hope they're doing most of the scoring. And that game still doesn't make Mike Adams a good player any more than SB43 made Darnell Stapleton a good player.

 

[Hines57]

Out of the 11 starters that put up those 51 points the last game 9 of the 11 was drafted by Tombert. With Ben and Heath being the exceptions. You add in Gilbert and Bryant and that is 11-13 drafted by them. So I really don't think the drafting has been that bad it has been the execution. Just my .02 worth.

You can't disagree with the gurus here at SN, they have all the mocks nailed and they spend hours jacking off over prospects they feel the team should draft instead of so and so because they are employed by no one to do so. smdh

 

[SCSteeler4life]

Well he's been here for 8 drafts. I can only hope they're doing most of the scoring. And that game still doesn't make Mike Adams a good player any more than SB43 made Darnell Stapleton a good player.

But it also doesn't prove that all of the drafting has been that bad.You don't score 51 with ****** players. They finally executed and played well.

 

[Idioteque]

Exactly. The ones with it all figured out are the ones who do no research at all, but **** on those who do. They'd never heard of Dri Archer, but by God, he's gonna be amazing because Steelers. And because Mel Kiper. And because 40 time.

Those who have watched him play, *********. Those who assume any Steelers is dynamite, authority.

 

[Idioteque]

But it also doesn't prove that all of the drafting has been that bad.You don't score 51 with ****** players. They finally executed and played well.

OK, but one game doesn't tell the story. The same roster lost at home to TB, so I can't quite assume anything yet.

 

[ZACKB]

Not a big deal Cope. I just saw, as many of us did, a greater need for a corner or a wr. I was def big on Bryant at that spot, but the corners at that draft slot were not all that great too. Desir was considered a project. Breeland was mocked in rds 2-3 was tall, and had good weight on him. He seems like a good fit. No idea why he fell.

I guess the FO passed because they really liked Shaquille Richardson. McCullers was a real nice find in rd 6, and many mock drafts had him much higher. Overall, I was just annoyed that we didn't go corner considering we really needed one. I like Shazier and Tuitt a lot, along with Bryant. If Breeland was our #3 pick it would have been ideal.

I like this guy. He gets it.


Thanks for the research. I don't mind being wrong, and it doesn't hurt my psyche to be wrong. I know it matters for some people who post on the internet, but not me!



Sorry for coming down hard about Breeland, Zack. I must have forgotten it about 100+ pages ago. Though I do get miffed when people say we should have taken Bryant in the 3rd, when we got him in the 4th.

And like Trog stated, how much of an issue would this still be if Bryant was taken with our Comp 3rd pick and Archer was taken with our 4th pick? Thoughts??

 

[Hollywood Bags]

Exactly. The ones with it all figured out are the ones who do no research at all, but **** on those who do. They'd never heard of Dri Archer, but by God, he's gonna be amazing because Steelers. And because Mel Kiper. And because 40 time.

Those who have watched him play, *********. Those who assume any Steelers is dynamite, authority.

That's this place in a nutshell.