If Archer is good enough to get the green light to return any kick - even one that's 9 yards deep in the endzone - he should get plenty of opportunities with half of his games at Heinz. But yeah, that thing Supe said about finding a peanut in the loaf.
Steelers select Dri Archer in Round 3
- Thread starter Atlsteelers
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,014
- Reaction score
- 630
- Points
- 113
Don't know what those numbers are, like I said, little foggy this am, have a migraine.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Rainey did 16, I don't see a monumental difference there
I
Idioteque
Guest
Well, that would pretty much mean a ton of drives starting at the 12-15. That's never a good idea. And I'm not sure I've ever seen any returned given that kind of green light.
I get that. And I'm not against it or anything. I just don't see a peanut anywhere. I don't like Martavis Bryant all that much as a prospect, but he has actual NFL upside in my eyes. When it comes to Archer, everyone has visions of Sproles and Randle El in their heads and I don't think he has any of their qualities whatsoever besides speed. I think he's a guy who, if he makes it through the preseason healthy, is going to be pretty much a non-factor as a Steeler. Hope I'm wrong though.
So all you see is speed from Archer. Straight line speed? Wallace had straight line speed so did Willie Parker. You see Archer as the same?
I
Idioteque
Guest
No. I don't consider speed the only attribute a player needs to have.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,014
- Reaction score
- 630
- Points
- 113
I do not. Here is why. Willie Parker broke tackles. He had some power. In his game against Tennessee, his very first game, he looked like he was playing Madden, bouncing off guys and running through tackles. He had some bulk, even though he was not a big guy. So, his speed was even more of an asset because he could run inside, grind yards, and then boom, he was gone. I do not see Archer as a guy that can carry the ball 20 times, grind you, then bust you. He has to bust runs when he touches because he lacks the bulk to grind.
Wallace was 6'. I can see how Archer is probably closer to Wallace than Parker though. Wallace was a better route runner and while he dropped some passes, he had the length to make catches over guys. He had the ability to beat press coverage. He knew the route tree, although he lacked the quickness to run the full tree and was a work in progress.
In the film I have watched on Archer, he struggles with passes that are deep and he is challenged. He does not adjust well. He is not going to attack the ball in the air. He also has some ugly drops when he has DBs close and I have a feeling he may be a guy that hears the footsteps. One other thing that bothers me, on low throws, where he has to go down and get the ball, he drops them, fights it, and does not make the catch. I do not like big WRs that struggle to make low catches but I get it, we are talking about a small WR that cannot catch low passes. Raw route runner, rounds stuff, does not get down the field as much.
What I see is a guy they use on special teams and bring in 4-5 times a game. They will run some pitches, jet runs, reverses, and maybe some screens. You'll see them force the ball into his hands, try to get him on the edge away from those big interior DL, and hope to use his speed horizontally. Same thing you saw them do with Rainey.
And, my problem with that is NFL teams know it is coming. NFL defenses are faster, bigger, and better coached. They will stuff that more than it happened in college and to me, I just question the value of it. I realize that NFL teams run screens and reverses and draws and it is successful, but much of the reason it is successful is they have a WR capable of playing WR that is running that play (or a RB that can play RB) so it catches the defense by surprise. I seriously doubt that if Archer is split wide and starts in motion towards the QB that the end will bite down and not contain. That kills the jets and reverses. NFL players are just beyond the point of being suckered in when they know that it has a high chance of coming.
Not what um asking. Do you consider Archer to only have straight line speed? Similar to Wallace and Parker.
I
Idioteque
Guest
No, he's got some wiggle and agility too.
Does that make him better than Parker and Wallace? Is that the point?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,014
- Reaction score
- 630
- Points
- 113
I think he has better wiggle than both Wallace and Parker, more COD. Now, Parker was better than Wallace, who really struggled to get out of his cuts. Archer has good quickness.
Still not what i was really referring to. Your correct Parker could run thru some tackles and he could also just outrace you. What he struggled with was making someone miss. Wallace was just incredibly fast so fast that he had trouble throttling that speed down once he was at full speed. Randel el was super quick. Able to stop and start on a dime make you miss. Archer combines both these attributes he is super fast and also super quick. Downside that to all that is yes he is super small. But to compare him to wallace or parker or randle el is shorting him no pun intended because he has both incredible speed and quickness. He can out run you and leave you grasping air. Will he able to with stand the punishment learn to run routes I have no idea. But to label him just a speed guy is wrong IMO.
Im not saying he better then anyone those guys had some great years for us..Archer hasnt played a down.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,014
- Reaction score
- 630
- Points
- 113
Yeah, he is quicker. Those players do not have to be quicker, because Parker played with power. To state he could not make you miss is a little misleading, because he had some wiggle. He was more of a cut runner than a dancer, but he had some burst.
Now, if you want to compare pure athleticism, fine, Archer is faster and quicker. But, why not just go draft the most athletic guy on the planet with your picks? Because they have to be able to play the game of football. When you compare him to Parker, he is faster and quicker, but can he break tackles? Can he handle the pounding (which eventually even derailed Parker)? Will he hold onto the football when getting hit? Those football aspects, Parker is easily superior.
If you compare him to Wallace, Wallace had height on the edge. As poor as Wallace's hands are, they are better than Archers. More experienced as a receiver. Better route runner, and he is average at best. So, when you factor in experience, size, hands, all the other WR stuff, Wallace is easily superior.
ARE may be the best comparison. ARE was 5'10"-190 pounds. Not as fast, close to the same quickness. IIRC, he had big hands for a guy his height. Excellent hands. Natural route runner even though he had not played a significant time at WR. So, ARE was bigger, more durable, more experienced, and vastly better hands. Not really a contest when it comes to comparing the football aspects.
If you want an athlete, Archer is your guy. The only problem is, at some point, he has to play football.
Lol once again im not comparing him to Wallace or Parker. Im just trying to say he is NOT just a straight line SPEED guy. He has damn good quicks to go with that speed. Nor am i comparing him to El. Im saying he has a combination of Els quicks and Wallace's and Parker's speed. Does he need work on his hands and routes. YES. Is he starting from ground zero in those departments i dont think so. His coach regrets playing him in the slot so much as a senior but those experiences will help him as he tries to learn it in the pros. He's a definite threat on kickoffs. I think he will be able to also return punts. Randle El returned 17 punts in college this kid had 8. Look im on record as saying when the pick came up i thought it would be Bryant or Desir. It wasnt. The kid can play though. He doesnt run scared. As a RB he ran between the tackles.. Can he do it against bigger stronger guys we will see. Hes been doing it his whole life.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 817
- Reaction score
- 45
- Points
- 28
This is my objection, in a nutshell. He may have speed, but just like Rainey, not enough to overcome the fact that defenses will key on him the moment he steps on the field. You have two options: hand him the ball and hope he makes something out of nothing, or use him as a decoy and hope it creates a mismatch somewhere else. Either way, I would rather not pin our hopes on trickery succeeding, in lieu of just getting talent that can hope to beat the opponent straight-up. There's a time and place for trick plays, but that time and place is when the opponent DOESN'T expect them. The problem with guys like Rainey and Archer in an NFL offense is they practically scream "TRICK PLAY! WE'RE RUNNING A TRICK PLAY HERE! CHECK US OUT!"
well, ****, it's not like we disguise our ******* plays at all anyway.
all those damn bubble screens...reverses... you, I and even Southern Steeler knew the play and where the ball was going to be forced.
all those damn bubble screens...reverses... you, I and even Southern Steeler knew the play and where the ball was going to be forced.
no doubt...if Archer is in the backfield, the possibilities are limited...
the best scenario I can think of at the moment is motioning him into some version of 4 or 5 wide and dare the other team to cover him with a LB one up or make them make them move a S over to help....
I'm sure there's film of Haley era McCluster out there.... gotta figure that's the way they'll try to use Archer.
http://www.Invalid Link - Check SN ...r-thinks-knows-new-rbwr-dri-archer-will-used/
that's not very optimistic.
The key will be is how quickly or if he can at all assimilate himself to the slot position. Makes things less predictable.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,014
- Reaction score
- 630
- Points
- 113
I do not think anyone has argued he lacks speed and quickness. I mean, that is why he was drafted. His straightline speed was the best in the draft. His shuttle time of 4.06 shows he has good quickness.
I seriously doubt anyone has even argued that point. And, I further do not see why you would bring up guys like Wallace, Parker, and ARE if your intention was not to compare them. Even if you point at how they made it with lesser physical attributes, you still are comparing them. The difference is, you only want to compare 40 times and shuttle numbers, not compare size, experience, or the other things they exhibited that made them NFL football players.
Reggie Dunn was a great athlete. Could not translate that speed to the NFL. Then there were Sam Graddy, Ron Brown, James Jett, John Capel, and Jeff Demps. Those are world class athletes that failed to translate that to the NFL.
If your argument is he is a great athlete, whoopty-*******-do. He has to be a football player. We need football players, even if they fail to outrun everyone in shorts.
I seriously doubt anyone has even argued that point. And, I further do not see why you would bring up guys like Wallace, Parker, and ARE if your intention was not to compare them. Even if you point at how they made it with lesser physical attributes, you still are comparing them. The difference is, you only want to compare 40 times and shuttle numbers, not compare size, experience, or the other things they exhibited that made them NFL football players.
Reggie Dunn was a great athlete. Could not translate that speed to the NFL. Then there were Sam Graddy, Ron Brown, James Jett, John Capel, and Jeff Demps. Those are world class athletes that failed to translate that to the NFL.
If your argument is he is a great athlete, whoopty-*******-do. He has to be a football player. We need football players, even if they fail to outrun everyone in shorts.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 705
- Reaction score
- 461
- Points
- 63
Look, I hated the pick too and would MUCH rather have taken a CB who would NOT likely see the field this year or even a player like Ellington (not likely to impact either) or even Abbredaris/Huff(gone) to be a 'possession' type receiver who might be a better long term prospect. Huff was a RB who was converted to WR while Abbredaris was a QB/Db before becoming a WR. Those types generally can hit the field sooner than later as they know how to get open and create space. Ellington wouldn't have been a bad choice either here but I am not going to undersell the potential of Archer.
I think Archer will get more plays on the field as a rookie than we think. Looking at his contemporaries, E.Sanders saw 28 receptions and 25 kick-off returns as a rookie; A. Brown saw 16 receptions and 17 kick-off returns here as a rookie. I know, they are career WRs, so lets look at some little guys who fit more:
Ace Sanders - in college, a receiver and punt return man with 99 receptions (funny, Archer had EXACTLY the same number of receptions in college). Only 12 carries. (Archer had 325)
- as a first year pro, on a **** team with horrible QB play, he had 51 receptions. More than any year in college. (we have better WR talent and a QB so he won't get 51 w/ us, IMO)
LaRod Stevens-Howling - in college, he had 429 carries (325), 52 receptions (99) and 34 kick-off returns (52). Very similar to Archer in size, college production and utilization.
- as a first year pro, he had only 6 carries, 10 receptions and 52 KO returns. He gradually increased his production to his 2012 numbers with 110 carries, 17 catches and 36 KO's
Dexter McCutcheon - in college, he had 304 carries (325), 130 receptions (99) and 19 KO returns. Closest in size and utilization in college to Archer.
- as a first year pro, he had 21 receptions, 18 rushes and 26 KO returns. His "highlight year" came in Haley's first year running his own offense resulting in 46 receptions, 114 rushes.
Rainey (being the only example of a 'scat-back' on this team with Haley's offense registered 26 carries and 14 receptions to go along w KO return duties.
While I still think we 'might' have seen comparable production from a 'true' WR with the pick here, I think 1-2 carries/gm to go along with 1-2 receptions/gm is realistic for Archer. He is a much better receiver than Ace Sanders was a SC, IMO and had as many catches in college. The difference being Archer doesn't run a 4.58 (4.26) 40, he has longer arms than either Sanders (29.5) or McCutcheon (29.25) at 31" (which is substantial). His hands are larger than McCutcheon's (8 3/8) and the same as Sanders at 8 7/8" AND he had a higher vertical leap (38") than Sanders (32") by 6".
We shall soon see if he is a 'boy' in a "mans world" on Sundays but he has the requisite skills to become something more than a utility player. Kiper said he would be the offensive rookie of the year ahead of Watkins (fat chance, but I'll take it). I think Tom is upset at seeing this "blindside pick" and Connor Shaw going to the Browns too.
At least the Browns cut Vince Young (Jamies Winston I) in order to make room for Connor! Sorry TMC, I used to like the kid.
I think Archer will get more plays on the field as a rookie than we think. Looking at his contemporaries, E.Sanders saw 28 receptions and 25 kick-off returns as a rookie; A. Brown saw 16 receptions and 17 kick-off returns here as a rookie. I know, they are career WRs, so lets look at some little guys who fit more:
Ace Sanders - in college, a receiver and punt return man with 99 receptions (funny, Archer had EXACTLY the same number of receptions in college). Only 12 carries. (Archer had 325)
- as a first year pro, on a **** team with horrible QB play, he had 51 receptions. More than any year in college. (we have better WR talent and a QB so he won't get 51 w/ us, IMO)
LaRod Stevens-Howling - in college, he had 429 carries (325), 52 receptions (99) and 34 kick-off returns (52). Very similar to Archer in size, college production and utilization.
- as a first year pro, he had only 6 carries, 10 receptions and 52 KO returns. He gradually increased his production to his 2012 numbers with 110 carries, 17 catches and 36 KO's
Dexter McCutcheon - in college, he had 304 carries (325), 130 receptions (99) and 19 KO returns. Closest in size and utilization in college to Archer.
- as a first year pro, he had 21 receptions, 18 rushes and 26 KO returns. His "highlight year" came in Haley's first year running his own offense resulting in 46 receptions, 114 rushes.
Rainey (being the only example of a 'scat-back' on this team with Haley's offense registered 26 carries and 14 receptions to go along w KO return duties.
While I still think we 'might' have seen comparable production from a 'true' WR with the pick here, I think 1-2 carries/gm to go along with 1-2 receptions/gm is realistic for Archer. He is a much better receiver than Ace Sanders was a SC, IMO and had as many catches in college. The difference being Archer doesn't run a 4.58 (4.26) 40, he has longer arms than either Sanders (29.5) or McCutcheon (29.25) at 31" (which is substantial). His hands are larger than McCutcheon's (8 3/8) and the same as Sanders at 8 7/8" AND he had a higher vertical leap (38") than Sanders (32") by 6".
We shall soon see if he is a 'boy' in a "mans world" on Sundays but he has the requisite skills to become something more than a utility player. Kiper said he would be the offensive rookie of the year ahead of Watkins (fat chance, but I'll take it). I think Tom is upset at seeing this "blindside pick" and Connor Shaw going to the Browns too.
At least the Browns cut Vince Young (Jamies Winston I) in order to make room for Connor! Sorry TMC, I used to like the kid.
I brought them up because saying he is like them is only telling half the story. Yes he has great speed like them. But he also has something they did not. Which is the ability to make someone miss in small areas. Neither Wallace or Parker did. Randle el was able to make you miss but didnt have great speed. That was my point. Archer has both attributes. Lets not also pretend that he doesnt have production at the college level. Reggie Dunn is not a good comparison. Lets not act like the kid only scored on gadget plays.
This is what prompted me to ask the questions about him only having straight line speed.
- Status