Steelers select Dri Archer in Round 3

[Vader]

It appears Joe that you would rather draft a guy with NO position over a guy that can play a position. Why draft Richardson in the 5th when they just signed Allen? Why draft Johnson when they already have Pouncey, Foster and DeCastro? Why even draft at any position since they have those areas filled? Why draft McCullers when you just signed Thomas and have McClendon at NT? Boy they are wasting a ton of picks. So since nobody is really stinking it up and you can't replace the ones that are (Allen) then why draft anyone at all?

 

[madinsomniac]

My position hasn't changed... He may well turn out in the long run, he is just a rookie after all, but that doesn't change the fact he was a high risk luxury pick in a premium draft spot during an incredibly deep draft who had a ton of question marks going into the draft and frankly only had speed as an asset. There were guys available that may have been high seconds or low first rounders in another draft still available and its not like we were so deep at every position that we could afford to ignore that kind of talent... we are more than half way through the season and he hasn't contributed at all despite seeing the field a good amount, its unfathomable to me that we risked losing out on Bryant for archer at this point...

 

[LeXX75]

This thread bores me...the same crap repeated over and over with a slightly different twist every now and then...

 

[Idioteque]

Blake seems to be doing just fine, I fail to see why when a guy has a good name, we go back to the "well, he might still suck" mantra.

Because it takes more than one game to prove you're a viable starter, let alone a long-term one.

How about we let the ******* guy on the field to SEE if he ends up sucking, instead of putting someone back out there who we already have seen suck a whole bunch.

And leave yourself with NO fallback plan? What if Jarvis continues to suck, and you've bypassed pass rushers just on basic principle?

I'm not sure why you're fiercely opposed to spending a late 3rd on a pass rusher - a majorly important position in any defense, but especially ours - but you applaud spending it on a scatback project with lots of red flags.

Next year we'll be starting Cortez, like it or not, since we just threw a truckload of cash at him, so I hope he's as good as they think he is.

I hate that we have to hope and pray he's startable. Because he's been one of the worst in football this year. I'm confused - if you're sold on Blake as our long-term starter based on last night's game, then doesn't Allen's season long shitfest mean anything to you? I mean, if one game proved Blake has taken The Leap, then don't 7-8 games prove Allen is sheer garbage?

And why the hell wouldn't I be ok with blake next to him given how he's been playing?

How he's been playing? It was one game, the first time he's played more than 17 snaps. That's quite a leap of faith there, that he's our CB of the future.

I would have put Adams out there last night, I have no idea why Gilbert was put out there again, he did ok, but Adams actually looked really good for 6 quarters of football, I would have waited to see if he could do it for 4 more. That's just me.

Adams looks OK when he gets help from a TE and a RB. I think we can do better, though. Lot of RTs out there who can look at least average on their own.

We have no replacement for Heath, as of now, but every year we seem to take a tight end in the draft, so eventually we'll get one.

I get this, but your'e just pushing off a million needs into the future, for two reasons: (1) you don't want to spend that 3rd on any position we've drafted in recent years, out of sheer principle; and (2) you assume we'll just snap out fingers and fill these huge, crucial spots whenever we feel like it. To me, every pick in the first 4-5 rounds is an opportunity to land a contributing starter or, once in a blue moon, a great player like Martavis who drastically outplays his draft slot. I'm not interested in throwing them away for the hell of it.

You think we're just going to find Heath's replacement in one of our David Paulson type picks? I can't assume that.

Foster isn't great, but he's nowhere near bad enough to start looking for his replacement. How many sacks has he given up this year?

PFF credits him with 2 sacks, 13 hurries, and grades him very negatively in the run game. Below average in the pass game. With all due respect, if you haven't seen Foster get flattened repeatedly over the years, you haven't been paying attention.

In any event, an upgrade there is more important than adding Dri Archer 999 times out of 1,000.

Mitchell seems to be playing just fine

I'm not sure which Mitchell we're watching, but the one I've seen has been awful.

and Shamarko WAS indeed drafted to replace Troy at some point, are you suggesting we should have taken YET ANOTHER safety at that spot? THAT to me would seem idiotic, after going to free agency for one, and supposedly having another waiting in the wings.

Yeah, maybe, I'd pretty much rather have taken anything but a K or P instead of Archer in the 3rd. You load yourself with multiple options at key positions, especially those with big question marks, before you draft Dri Archer and pray all of his many, many red flags disappear and he becomes Dexter McCluster 2.0.

You seem to think we should draft some guys, then whether they show anything or not, STOP adding guys IMMEDIATELY. Gamble the future on guys like Gilbert and Cortez and Jarvis turning it all around tomorrow, because you'd feel stupid drafting competition for them. I can't get on board with that. I'd rather look for potential upgrades than stubbornly keep trotting them out and assume we'll be fine.

 

[t-man]

He was rated a 3rd round pick.

The Steelers took him in the third round.

We can debate this forever, ****, I have a list of 10 guys who were supposed to make us all rue the name Dri Archer, so far, I'm not ruing much just yet. I know this is a discussion board, and I know we can say "but what about this player who needs replaced" for just about everyone on the roster. I don't have a counter to it, since I don't actually know what discussion and debate went on in those draft meetings when they were creating the draft board.

I can see all this hand-wringing had we taken the guy in the first round, but for crying out loud, he was rated damn near where we selected him.

I was just told he would have been a fine pick by the Seachickens, since that team had no holes and could afford such a luxury pick, how are they doing this season so far?

Joe

 

[Idioteque]

He was rated a 3rd round pick.

The Steelers took him in the third round.

Ryan Leaf was once widely considered the #1 player on the draft board. Better than Peyton Manning. Still, I have to blame the Chargers a little for picking the horribly wrong guy.

Live by Mel Kiper's rankings, die by Mel Kiper's rankings.

We can debate this forever, ****, I have a list of 10 guys who were supposed to make us all rue the name Dri Archer

Dear God, yes, we know. I feel like you mention it every single day.

so far, I'm not ruing much just yet.

That's fair, though several of them have already outplayed Archer at much harder, much more important positions. Hell, in fact, they all have positions. And none have been benched from both KR team AND PR team in their first five NFL weeks.

I know this is a discussion board, and I know we can say "but what about this player who needs replaced" for just about everyone on the roster.

No, just the ****** ones. I know you feel Cortez Allen is golden and makes for an awesome long-term starter, but some of us disagree, with great reason.

I can see all this hand-wringing had we taken the guy in the first round, but for crying out loud, he was rated damn near where we selected him.

I was just told he would have been a fine pick by the Seachickens, since that team had no holes and could afford such a luxury pick, how are they doing this season so far?

This is another giant strawman.

 

[t-man]

I never said **** about Allen's ability, what I SAID was, we paid that ************, so odds are he's going to be out there starting. I'm not saying that was a wise move, I have no idea why we didn't try to keep Lewis instead, but again, they didn't call me to ask my opinion.

Joe

 

[t-man]

And didn't someone just say that at least if a guy was rated highly, and thought of as a good pick, that pick is easier to defend. Aka, Ryan Leaf. I mean, who could fault them for making the consensus pick, after all, he was PROJECTED to play well at the position, it's not like they caught a prize winning bass on a hunk of cheese after all. Right? Wasn't that exactly the argument about 3 pages back, that even if the pick sucked like a ******* hoover, so long as people didn't THINK he was going to suck, well, mr Colbert need not worry, since he could defend his pick.

Eh, I don't know what keeps me coming back here, I feel like the goalposts get moved more here in this thread than Rogers definition of "tarnishing the shield" gets changed.

Joe

 

[LeXX75]

Padlock...Padlock...Padlock...who's with me ?

 

[FAB802]

Padlock...Padlock...Padlock...who's with me ?

It will just pollute another thread, but I appreciate the sentiment.

 

[Steelerfan]

Padlock...Padlock...Padlock...who's with me ?

Can you let it his 200 pages first? Pretty please with cherries on top?

 

[LeXX75]

It will just pollute another thread, but I appreciate the sentiment.

yeah pretty much what I was thinking also...damned if you do damned if you dont

 

[Idioteque]

And didn't someone just say that at least if a guy was rated highly, and thought of as a good pick, that pick is easier to defend. Aka, Ryan Leaf. I mean, who could fault them for making the consensus pick, after all, he was PROJECTED to play well at the position, it's not like they caught a prize winning bass on a hunk of cheese after all. Right? Wasn't that exactly the argument about 3 pages back, that even if the pick sucked like a ******* hoover, so long as people didn't THINK he was going to suck, well, mr Colbert need not worry, since he could defend his pick.

Eh, I don't know what keeps me coming back here, I feel like the goalposts get moved more here in this thread than Rogers definition of "tarnishing the shield" gets changed.

Joe

Not at all. Not from me, anyway. You never heard me say we should base our draft around what Mel Kiper and the draft magazines said about a player's round projection in a vacuum.

What I said, very clearly, was that picking a guy with an NFL profile.. who plays an NFL position.. a position we need help at.. is a pick I'd defend even if the guy didn't pan out. You're the one quoting "he was rated 3rd or 4th round!!" to defend a pick you now know was garbage.

 

[LeXX75]

Not at all. Not from me, anyway. You never heard me say we should base our draft around what Mel Kiper and the draft magazines said about a player's round projection in a vacuum.

What I said, very clearly, was that picking a guy with an NFL profile.. who plays an NFL position.. a position we need help at.. is a pick I'd defend even if the guy didn't pan out. You're the one quoting "he was rated 3rd or 4th round!!" to defend a pick you now know was garbage.

in your mind you know it was garbage...you don't know what t-man knows unless you are some kind of internet message board mind reader..

 

[Superman]

By the way, we're right back to our circular argument where people go-

"Well, I'm not saying for sure who we SHOULD have taken, but LOOK at all these positions we still aren't great at, and look at who we have"

Which is, again, like saying-

"I don't know what I DO want for dinner, but I know I do NOT want fish"

If your desire is to be the best damn team in the NFL on paper, that's great, I think three weeks ago that was either the Cowboys or the Chargers, pundints and the like going on and on about those teams. After the first game it was Broncos or Seahags, of course. The paper champs don't concern me, this isn't fantasy football, this team is putting up points and generating turnovers without several key players right now. We won a superbowl with Chris Hope playing at safety, it's about getting the guys on the field to be successful WHEN they need to be.

Joe

My opinion, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will be quick to point it out, but in the draft process, I'd believe that the coaching staff as a whole makes comparisons to whom they have on roster vs whom they can draft vs who they can sign via FA. In such a way, a chart is produced ranking the current depth chart vs who would be a comparable replacement via FA and who they see in the draft who could come in and produce compared to what is already available. As I've said previously, I was not a fan of Dri Archer, but the staff saw something in him that they favored more than anyone else currently available.

The same thing could be said about a certain average/smallish WR taken in the sixth round a few years ago from a small school. Though that flyer pick turned out, I recall there being discussion about drafting Myron Rolle since he fit the prototypical DB size/type for the position. Same argument could apply to Dekoda Watson and George Selvie.

I'll admit, I wanted us to draft George Selvie.

Sometimes us know-it-all fans aren't privvy to all that the scouts and coaches are. Though with what miniscule information we have in comparison, we're all damn good draft gurus.

 

[Idioteque]

I also LOVED George Selvie. Couldn't believe he fell the way he did.

Indeed, we don't know ALL the coaches know, so much of our discussion is incomplete and based on assumption. But a few points:

1. The coaches and FOs are also dealing on assumption and incomplete information. They don't know all there is to know, or Ryan Leaf and Tim Worley wouldn't have been drafted. Of course they see quite a bit more than us, but we still have access to player tape and stats and trusted scouting reports and so forth, so we can at least form educated opinions on message boards.

Which is ultimately all that we're doing here.

2. It doesn't take inside Steeler information to know our pass rush needs juice, and our CB depth chart is bad, etc. So I don't need to sit in on coach meetings to assume we need to address certain positions. Hell, head coaches sit in on meetings and quite a bit more but still choose Cortez over Lewis and cut James Harrison and send Kurt Warner to NFL Europe. Again, we can also form educated opinions.

3. We're not all "damn good draft gurus." Many of us form opinions, some right, some wrong. As soon as someone comes along and says they have All The Answers, tell them they're full of ****. But I've only seen one poster to claim to be a better scout and a more qualified decision maker than Tombert, and one guy is a pretty small party to launch into criticisms of all who talk draft.

At the root of this discussion is a simple difference in player evaluation and priorotizing. Both sides have presented good points, but many of us feel the "Archer was a good pick" side is ignoring a LOT of red flags that dictate why guys like him succeed 0% of the time. I don't see why it's so assholish to argue against that, or why the "Archer was a great pick because he's fast" argument is bulletproof.

 

[Idioteque]

Also, I don't see why educated discourse is tolerated in matters of politics, art, etc. - but not football. Go check out the other sections of this board. We're all experts on Saddam and Benghazi and the economy and why one Bob Dylan album sucked more than another one. But pro football?! STFU peons, you could NEVER really understand.

 

[Wingman]

I hate to do this but I thought I heard that the yets were very bad on kick off coverage and wonder if this is the time to try out walking small again and maybe he takes a few down the field.

 

[nooneuno]

Personally I think you just put him back there and live or die by him returning kick offs. It's not like Blount is doing any better.

I don't get the animosity some have towards the pick myself, we wasted a 3rd on Willie Reid because he was suppose to be a great punt returner and he was gone within 3 years. We wasted an early 2nd round pick on Richardo Colclough and gave him four years. It doesn't look promising for Archer to this point but he's only half way through his rookie season. Hell some of you have had him pegged as a bust since the second he was drafted.

Interestingly enough Colcough was still playing in the CFL earlier this year. Now there was a wasted pick there was some talent in that 2004 draft.

 

[coupon]

so who won?

 

[Idioteque]

Personally I think you just put him back there and live or die by him returning kick offs. It's not like Blount is doing any better.

It seems to me he was benched for running kicks out from 9 yards deep into poor blocking. I agree though. You drafted him mainly to return kicks, you're not playing him on offense, why aren't you letting him learn returns? It's not like he should be taking plays from Bell and Brown anyway.

I don't get the animosity some have towards the pick myself, we wasted a 3rd on Willie Reid because he was suppose to be a great punt returner and he was gone within 3 years. We wasted an early 2nd round pick on Richardo Colclough and gave him four years. It doesn't look promising for Archer to this point but he's only half way through his rookie season. Hell some of you have had him pegged as a bust since the second he was drafted.

I considered him a LIKELY bust, considering 0% of players with his profile and red flags succeed. And I'm not sure why blowing past picks makes Archer a better one.

 

[nooneuno]

It seems to me he was benched for running kicks out from 9 yards deep into poor blocking. I agree though. You drafted him mainly to return kicks, you're not playing him on offense, why aren't you letting him learn returns? It's not like he should be taking plays from Bell and Brown anyway.



I considered him a LIKELY bust, considering 0% of players with his profile and red flags succeed. And I'm not sure why blowing past picks makes Archer a better one.

I'm in no way saying it makes it a better pick, just saying it's too early to label him a bust at this point. He's definitely been a disappointment and most of the criticism of him has been valid to this point. If anything I think the kid has been trying to hard, bringing out kicks he shouldn't be.

 

[Vader]

I'm in no way saying it makes it a better pick, just saying it's too early to label him a bust at this point. He's definitely been a disappointment and most of the criticism of him has been valid to this point. If anything I think the kid has been trying to hard, bringing out kicks he shouldn't be.

He is being told to bring them out. There is no way a rookie, 3rd round pick is deciding on his own to bring them out from 9 yards deep. After he comes off the field nobody is talking to him like he did anything wrong. It was clearly the plan to let him bring them out.

 

[Troglodyte]

Isn't Archers profile and red flags the same as Josh Cribbs, Dave Meggett and Darren Sproles? 0%?

 

[DBS1970]

I think I smell old cheese....