As a Freshman and Senior Archer didn't return ANY punts. Freshman probably because he's... a freshman and Senior probably because he was banged up already. In his Sophomore year he had 5 out of the teams 27 and in his Junior season he had 1 out of their whopping 9 punt returns. I know none of this matters because he has no chance of ever returning punts for the Steelers because he has short arms...
So, Kent State is too smart to have a freshman return punts but the Steelers will just hand the job to a guy with 6 collegiate punt returns. I got it. You can babble about the short arms, little hands, needs a booster seat at most restaurants, and all that ****, it does not change the ******* FACT that Kent State had 78 punt opportunities while Archer was on roster and found someone better on 72 of those chances. On his whopping 6 runs, he gathered 8 ******* yards TOTAL. And YOU think he will displace Antonio Brown, one of the better punt returners in the league. Got it. Babble on.....
They didn't have one person return every punt. Looks liek between 3-7 guys did every year. Brown returned all 32 for us last year and that is part of why Archer was drafted!
There is an old saying, why is a coach using two QBs, because he does not have one. Why did Kent State use various punt returners? Because they did not have one. The Steelers had Antonio Brown, one of the better guys in the league last season. How many people returned punts for the Steelers? One. Why? Because they have a punt returner. Kent State did not. Flop around and wiggle all you want, like a big fish on the deck of a boat, but your caught. Flipping and flopping won't do you any good.
Again he didn't return anything, in fact only two kick returns last year. Does that mean he now can't return kicks either? Damn, must be his tiny head.
I would think that it means they had someone better. If I am a team like Kent State, someone that gets their *** kicked regularly, and I have an ultimate return weapon, I damn sure do not shelve it for funsies.
Starts and snaps are two different things. Edwards sucked from day one and they forced him into the offense. Hines was head and shoulders better but they kept trying to turn edwards into the guy.
You said: "But Edwards continued to start". Is it snaps now? Are you sure? Is that the measure you want to use? I mean, you stated starts. You also stated if Archer had like 75 opportunities and did not get snaps, now you are excusing the snaps. Maybe you need a minute to lock down your argument. Take your time.
Who started the begining of the year last year? Adams because he was a second round pick and was making bank. Beachum was head and shoulders above Adams and Gilbert but because they are drafted higher they get the nod first.
So, it is starts again? You sure you do not want to discuss snaps? Because if it were snaps played, I think Beachum wins that one. And, good thing you limit it to who starts the beginning of the year, because Beachum started 12 games and Adams only started 10. Beachum did not get the nod at a tackle spot because of his length. The thing is, Adams stunk it up and lost the starting job to Beachum. Still the 7th rounder has displaced the 2nd rounder, higher salary and all. So, continue to change your argument, snaps, starts, when they started, what color underwear they had on, whatever you need to try to salvage that point.
See the Gilbert and Adams explanation above. If you think a 1st round and 7th round pick have an equal chance of making the 53 man once camp starts you are totally and utterly clueless.
So, it is about making the 53-man roster? Is that what it is about? If that is the case, I think Archer makes the roster. I thought your statements were he would play and impact. ****, hard to keep track of the point you are making, kind of like trying to piss in a swinging jug.....it just keeps moving as you blow out more hot air.
I had Richardson, Bryant, Archer, and McGill all solid 3rd round grades. At that time Richardson was the highest player on my board. I felt McGill was probably the biggest need position at CB. I figured with what Colbert and Co said about getting Ben a tall receiver Bryant as likely the pick. But the guy I wanted, the guy I would draft at that time was Dri Archer.
You stated Archer was the best available. Changing again? I notice a theme.
Yep, Archer obviously can't return punts... He had so many opportunities... yep.
Nope. He did not have the opportunities. Kent State, as a team, had opportunities, but they decided to go by committee. Why? Because they did not have a guy good enough to just take the job. Period. End of discussion. Yet, one of their committee is going to come in and displace a Pro Bowl caliber punt returner as a rookie. Got it. Puff, puff, pass.
Ok, so Archer has 0% chance of returning kicks or punts. I will remind you of this later.
You need a little more straw to fill that man out.
You shut your mouth when you are talking to TMC. He doesn't let knowledge and facts get between him and his opinion! Archer can't return kicks and punts... he's too short and we all know there's a height requirement to do so!!!
That is pretty rich. What facts are you presenting again? Oh, wait, he ran around in shorts and caught punts. Yep, pro bowl here we come. I bet NO other guy has ever ran around in shorts and caught punts. Oh, wait, he ran well in shorts at the combine too.
The problem is, on the football field, in game situations, he was not trusted or valued enough to return punts. He fumbled. He spent the better part of his final year and a half battling injuries. And, he is tiny enough to get pushed around on most playgrounds. Other than that....HELL YEAH.....
