Uncle Jarvis

[tapeANaspirin2it]

I didn't read this whole thread but i assume at some point somebody tried to call out somebody who criticized Jarvis as not a real fan or as rooting against him just to be right.

Let me break this down.

Several people, myself included, hated the Jarvis pick. Why? Because on film he was only really effective vs weak OTs and most of his impact plays were hustle plays. He then had some really bad workouts. Terrible. Now also throw in that he has a chronic spinal condition and he's already 25. Those are several extremely valid reasons not to like the pick.

The critics also pointed out that since it's not really possible for him to get faster, his only chance at success was to get much stronger and learn pass rush moves. The prediction was that he would struggle mightily until these things happened.

Fast forward a year and everything the critics predicted, happened.

Now you have Jarvis himself saying he needed to get stronger, so he hit the weights, bulked up and is now trying to dedicate himself to learning his craft. In other words, he is now doing what the critics said he would have to do to be successful.

What's the point? The point is that you self proclaimed real fans better not be trying to call people out if Jarvis has a decent season this year after he bulked up exactly how the critics correctly predicted that he would have to.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I didn't read this whole thread but i assume at some point somebody tried to call out somebody who criticized Jarvis as not a real fan or as rooting against him just to be right.

Let me break this down.

Several people, myself included, hated the Jarvis pick. Why? Because on film he was only really effective vs weak OTs and most of his impact plays were hustle plays. He then had some really bad workouts. Terrible. Now also throw in that he has a chronic spinal condition and he's already 25. Those are several extremely valid reasons not to like the pick.

The critics also pointed out that since it's not really possible for him to get faster, his only chance at success was to get much stronger and learn pass rush moves. The prediction was that he would struggle mightily until these things happened.

Fast forward a year and everything the critics predicted, happened.

Now you have Jarvis himself saying he needed to get stronger, so he hit bulked up and is now trying to dedicate himself to learning his craft. In other words, he is now doing what the critics said he would have to do to be successful.

What's the point? The point is that you self proclaimed real fans better not be trying to call people out if Jarvis has a decent season this year after he bulked up exactly how the critics correctly predicted that he would have to.

This was his rookie season. He had to learn pass rush moves regardless - that was one of the first things Keith Butler said about Jarvis before he even took a single regular season snap. Your post makes no sense. Forgive me if i'm forgetting some obvious example, but what Steelers OLBer dominated his rookie season?

Not to mention that doctors cleared him from having spinal stenosis.

 

[dobre shunka]

To reiterate, I'm sure Butler could care less how you or the media perceives or reacts to his comments. The one thing that is not BS....Butler is obviously sharing his insight into his clear reverence for his young Right Outside Linebacker and is very pleased with his progress in a system which is difficult to transition to particularly as a rookie...he simply referenced this progress by side-noting Jones's quarterback pressures which he obviously feels is relevant in regards in disrupting opposing offenses down the stretch of last season....

Now we're back to where we started, lap 2. My only point in this thread has been the pressure (and tackle) stats that the org/coaches spoonfeed the media are garbage.

Just to clarify, I don't know who in the org Robinson got his info from for this particular article, doesn't say. I introduced Butler earlier as an example of often reciting these numbers in interviews and being at the center of these types of fluff pieces (like a year or two ago when Foote suggested Butler has his motives for doctoring stats to elevate Timmons over him in tackles).

To recap: I said the numbers are crap. You start out by trying to defend the numbers, suggesting the layperson just doesn't understand them. I point out that's not the problem, the problem is they're crap, here's why, and question motive. You then blame inaccuracies on the media and say Butler doesn't care what we think. I said I blame the media for being lazy and for not questioning obvious BS, but they are only parroting/regurgitating what they're told by the coaches/org, supported by their own in-house numbers they themselves went to the trouble to compile. Again, why? You then said again Butler doesn't care what we think. Then why does he so often try to change public perception thru bullshit numbers? If he doesn't care, then shut up, decline talking to the media and go about your business. If he wants to prop up a guy he thinks is taking more heat than he deserves, there are other ways besides lying.

Here is what I'm talking about, this is the media notes Burt Lauten puts out every Tues prior to a game, the stats come from the coaches:

http://prod.static.steelers.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/Steelers_notes_for_Browns_game_12_23_2013.pdf

This is for the Browns finale. It's the last one they put out. The final numbers come out soon with the 2014 media guide. Page 29 has the defensive stats thru 15 games.

The PSD faced 1036 total plays in 2013. Of which 240 were incomplete passes, 10 INTs, 41 TDs, and 12 kneel downs. Those are all plays where no tackles is made/credited, 303 total. Tho those are not all the plays where a tackle is not made, just the ones that are easily accounted for without combing thru gamebooks and scrubbing film (QB slides, runs OOB untouched/forced, etc). So, 1036 - 303 = 733 maximum possible number of tackles that could be made on the season. Backing out the Browns game from those totals (64 total plays, 23 inc, 1 INT, 1 TD) we get 972 total offensive plays thru 15 games, and 278 no-tackle plays (inc, int, td, kneels). Leaves you with a MAXIMUM POSSIBLE number of tackles of 694. Now look at p29. Come on. Now compare that with their opponents same stats. Come one. No look at the QPs. Come on. (notice Jones, btw). Now compare that to their opponents. Come the eff on. I don't know which coaches are compiling these. If it's their quality control coaches, or if it's from each room/units Sun nite film breakdown, if it's the D coaches compiling the D stats and O coaches compiling the Opponents, dunno. Or if they keep two sets of books, one secret non-fiction book, and one for the fair tale section of their public library. But if the coaches are grading/compiling their own players (and again, this in not unique, other teams are equally suspect), well, it's no small wonder why some teams allegedly use PFF, trading garbage for garbage. Either it's biased garbage compiled by their coaches, or it's manufactured propaganda created by their PR dept for the purpose of propping up certain players. Either way, it's completely and utterly useless. And again, that has been my one and only point in this whole thread. Those numbers are useless crap and not to be trusted/believed/swallowed.

With that, I'm done with this. We're just making laps around the same track now.

 

[Idioteque]

Now we're back to where we started, lap 2. My only point in this thread has been the pressure (and tackle) stats that the org/coaches spoonfeed the media are garbage.

Just to clarify, I don't know who in the org Robinson got his info from for this particular article, doesn't say. I introduced Butler earlier as an example of often reciting these numbers in interviews and being at the center of these types of fluff pieces (like a year or two ago when Foote suggested Butler has his motives for doctoring stats to elevate Timmons over him in tackles).

To recap: I said the numbers are crap. You start out by trying to defend the numbers, suggesting the layperson just doesn't understand them. I point out that's not the problem, the problem is they're crap, here's why, and question motive. You then blame inaccuracies on the media and say Butler doesn't care what we think. I said I blame the media for being lazy and for not questioning obvious BS, but they are only parroting/regurgitating what they're told by the coaches/org, supported by their own in-house numbers they themselves went to the trouble to compile. Again, why? You then said again Butler doesn't care what we think. Then why does he so often try to change public perception thru bullshit numbers? If he doesn't care, then shut up, decline talking to the media and go about your business. If he wants to prop up a guy he thinks is taking more heat than he deserves, there are other ways besides lying.

Here is what I'm talking about, this is the media notes Burt Lauten puts out every Tues prior to a game, the stats come from the coaches:

http://prod.static.steelers.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/Steelers_notes_for_Browns_game_12_23_2013.pdf

This is for the Browns finale. It's the last one they put out. The final numbers come out soon with the 2014 media guide. Page 29 has the defensive stats thru 15 games.

The PSD face 1036 total plays in 2013. Of which 240 were incomplete passes, 10 INTs, 41 TDs, and 12 kneel downs. Those are all plays where no tackles is made/credited, 303 total. Tho those are not all the plays where a tackle is not made, just the ones that are easily accounted for (QB slides, runs OOB untouched/forced, etc). So, 1036 - 303 = 733 maximum possible number of tackles that could be made on the season. Backing out the Browns game from those totals (64 total plays, 23 inc, 1 INT, 1 TD) we get 972 total offensive plays thru 15 games, and 278 no-tackle plays (inc, int, td, kneels). Leaves you with a MAXIMUM POSSIBLE number of tackles of 694. Now look at p29. Come on. Now compare that with their opponents same stats. Come one. No look at the QPs. Come on. (notice Jones, btw). Now compare that to their opponents. Come the eff on. I don't know which coaches are compiling these. If it's their quality control coaches, or if it's from each room/units Sun nite film breakdown, if it's the D coaches compiling the D stats and O coaches compiling the Opponents, dunno. Or if they keep two sets of books, one secret non-fiction book, and one for the fair tale section of their public library. But if the coaches are grading/compiling their own players (and again, this in not unique, other teams are equally suspect), well, it's no small wonder why some teams allegedly use PFF, trading garbage for garbage. Either it's biased garbage compiled by their coaches, or it's manufactured propaganda created by their PR dept for the purpose of propping up certain players. Either way, it's completely and utterly useless. And again, that has been my one and only point in this whole thread. Those numbers are useless crap and not to be trusted/believed/swallowed.

With that, I'm done with this. We're just making laps around the same track now.

You know why, don't you?

It's because you've questioned a Steeler.

By denying Jarvis the 79 hurries, 36 sacks, 254 tackles, and 34 pass breakups with which the team has credited him, you've outed yourself as a Steeler hater. You've made it clear that, deep down, you despise the Steelers. You only want him to fail, because Steeler Nation posters only want THEIR favorite draft prospects to succeed.

What? No I don't have any examples! I just wanted to say it, hope that someone else would parrot the same thing or post "LOLZ!!" and then I wouldn't be accountable for my ****-talking babble.

Never mind that an objective source only credits Jarvis with 7 hurries. Never mind how unique and bizarre it would be for Jarvis to have 25 hurries, yet only one sack. Never mind that he was benched at midseason.

 

[Litos]

can't we all just get along?

 

[t-man]

I didn't read this whole thread but i assume at some point somebody tried to call out somebody who criticized Jarvis as not a real fan or as rooting against him just to be right.

Let me break this down.

Several people, myself included, hated the Jarvis pick. Why? Because on film he was only really effective vs weak OTs and most of his impact plays were hustle plays. He then had some really bad workouts. Terrible. Now also throw in that he has a chronic spinal condition and he's already 25. Those are several extremely valid reasons not to like the pick.

The critics also pointed out that since it's not really possible for him to get faster, his only chance at success was to get much stronger and learn pass rush moves. The prediction was that he would struggle mightily until these things happened.

Fast forward a year and everything the critics predicted, happened.

Now you have Jarvis himself saying he needed to get stronger, so he hit the weights, bulked up and is now trying to dedicate himself to learning his craft. In other words, he is now doing what the critics said he would have to do to be successful.

What's the point? The point is that you self proclaimed real fans better not be trying to call people out if Jarvis has a decent season this year after he bulked up exactly how the critics correctly predicted that he would have to.

So, you're saying that if he has a great year, it's because you were right. And if he has a ****** year, it's ALSO because you were right.

I swear, some of you ************* MUST hold public office.

Joe

 

[Black & Gold Bleeder]

You know why, don't you?

It's because you've questioned a Steeler.

By denying Jarvis the 79 hurries, 36 sacks, 254 tackles, and 34 pass breakups with which the team has credited him, you've outed yourself as a Steeler hater. You've made it clear that, deep down, you despise the Steelers. You only want him to fail, because Steeler Nation posters only want THEIR favorite draft prospects to succeed.

.

The difference? The difference is that Dobre is respected, he isn't a ****, doesn't attack other posters, or elevate himself above other posters. He has demonstrated knowledge, yet holds himself to the same standards and perceived level of other less knowledgeable posters. THAT is the HUGE difference here.

 

[Idioteque]

The difference? The difference is that Dobre is respected, he isn't a ****, doesn't attack other posters, or elevate himself above other posters. He has demonstrated knowledge, yet holds himself to the same standards and perceived level of other less knowledgeable posters. THAT is the HUGE difference here.

I elevate myself above other posters. LOL. This board has ******* tailspun, and how. It is an absolute pussydrip festival at this point.

I ask for other standards? I'd love an example of this. Or just an explanation. I'll wait patiently.

 

[Stryker]

Heyward could replace Hood. IF they bring Keisel back then you have Heyward at LDE, McClendon at NT and Keisel at RDE. If you want to get technical about it then every starter from last year is a year older. So the cumulative age would be high this year after you subtract the few years difference between Clark and Mitchell.

How were they old and slow last year? Hood is gone and replaced by the exact same age guy in Thomas. They had a rookie at ROLB and LILB. Even if Shazier starts, he is taking the place of another rookie. The only spot on defense that is younger than last year is safety where they signed a 27 year old Mitchell. So they are younger now because of ONE guy?

What mistake did I make? Keisel could still be signed and play RDE.. right? You act like the starters are set. They are not. The reason Cam couldn't get on the field is because the coaches were giving Hood one last chance to do something. He was a 1st round pick you know. Heyward backed up both LDE and RDE. So if Hood went down Cam would have gone in. Like I said if Keisel comes back the defense will actually be older than last year.

Wow Vader, you are wrong here, and you're trying to save face by claiming we CAN start someone who isn't even on the roster? That's terrible logic, and I'm not jumping that hypothetical.

We now will have Heyward starting for Keisel. There's 10 years (35-25). You want to play the hypothetical game, I can at least do it with players on this roster. Tuitt may start on the other side? If so that's 6 years (27-21), otherwise it's a wash with Thomas.

Mitchell is the starter taking Clark's place 34-27 = 7yrs
Williams or Shazier will start over last year's starter Foote. I'll stick with Williams as the starter and we get 33-24 = 9 years. Shazier would take it to 12 years.
Ike may lose his job to Gay 34-29 = 5 years.
Worlids is a wash as a starter moving from one side to the other
Woodley for Worlids is where the age gap is shown between both starting OLBs. 5 years gained

By my numbers, we will start a defense between 31-45 years younger than last year's starting D week 1. Even conservatively this defense will be significantly younger than last years.

Now we're back to where we started, lap 2. My only point in this thread has been the pressure (and tackle) stats that the org/coaches spoonfeed the media are garbage.

Just to clarify, I don't know who in the org Robinson got his info from for this particular article, doesn't say. I introduced Butler earlier as an example of often reciting these numbers in interviews and being at the center of these types of fluff pieces (like a year or two ago when Foote suggested Butler has his motives for doctoring stats to elevate Timmons over him in tackles).

To recap: I said the numbers are crap. You start out by trying to defend the numbers, suggesting the layperson just doesn't understand them. I point out that's not the problem, the problem is they're crap, here's why, and question motive. You then blame inaccuracies on the media and say Butler doesn't care what we think. I said I blame the media for being lazy and for not questioning obvious BS, but they are only parroting/regurgitating what they're told by the coaches/org, supported by their own in-house numbers they themselves went to the trouble to compile. Again, why? You then said again Butler doesn't care what we think. Then why does he so often try to change public perception thru bullshit numbers? If he doesn't care, then shut up, decline talking to the media and go about your business. If he wants to prop up a guy he thinks is taking more heat than he deserves, there are other ways besides lying.

Here is what I'm talking about, this is the media notes Burt Lauten puts out every Tues prior to a game, the stats come from the coaches:

http://prod.static.steelers.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/Steelers_notes_for_Browns_game_12_23_2013.pdf

This is for the Browns finale. It's the last one they put out. The final numbers come out soon with the 2014 media guide. Page 29 has the defensive stats thru 15 games.

The PSD faced 1036 total plays in 2013. Of which 240 were incomplete passes, 10 INTs, 41 TDs, and 12 kneel downs. Those are all plays where no tackles is made/credited, 303 total. Tho those are not all the plays where a tackle is not made, just the ones that are easily accounted for without combing thru gamebooks and scrubbing film (QB slides, runs OOB untouched/forced, etc). So, 1036 - 303 = 733 maximum possible number of tackles that could be made on the season. Backing out the Browns game from those totals (64 total plays, 23 inc, 1 INT, 1 TD) we get 972 total offensive plays thru 15 games, and 278 no-tackle plays (inc, int, td, kneels). Leaves you with a MAXIMUM POSSIBLE number of tackles of 694. Now look at p29. Come on. Now compare that with their opponents same stats. Come one. No look at the QPs. Come on. (notice Jones, btw). Now compare that to their opponents. Come the eff on. I don't know which coaches are compiling these. If it's their quality control coaches, or if it's from each room/units Sun nite film breakdown, if it's the D coaches compiling the D stats and O coaches compiling the Opponents, dunno. Or if they keep two sets of books, one secret non-fiction book, and one for the fair tale section of their public library. But if the coaches are grading/compiling their own players (and again, this in not unique, other teams are equally suspect), well, it's no small wonder why some teams allegedly use PFF, trading garbage for garbage. Either it's biased garbage compiled by their coaches, or it's manufactured propaganda created by their PR dept for the purpose of propping up certain players. Either way, it's completely and utterly useless. And again, that has been my one and only point in this whole thread. Those numbers are useless crap and not to be trusted/believed/swallowed.

With that, I'm done with this. We're just making laps around the same track now.

I get your numbers and I understand them, however you have to take into account assisted tackles. They're like assists in Hockey. A team scores 3 goals and can have as many as 6 assists assigned to 3 goals. Like tackling, where combined tackles count as one take down, depending on the team, 2-4 people can get credited for an assisted tackle (+Ray Lewis if you're scoring in Baltimore). This is a situation where statistics don't always match the actual numbers. The tackle total is tackles plus assisted tackles, so the total number of tackles counted for a defense will always be higher than the actual number of tackles made in a season by the defense.

 

[Vader]

who is Keisel going to start over? He's been a RDE his entire Tenure with the Steelers. They're going to sign him and slap him on the left? Why even bother sign Cam Thomas if both he and Tuitt are just going to sit behind Keisel? Or is the 35 year old Keisel going to start over Cam Heyward after his breakout 2013 season? Why let Keisel go if you're just going to sign him back and hand him the start? This was your post:

You've painted yourself into a corner and rather than admit it you start with hypotheticals that fly in the face of common sense. You forgot Keisel. It's plain as day.

What? Can you read? I clearly said that Keisel could be re-signed and could start at RDE. Is that soooo out of the realm of possibility? I NEVER said he'd be on the left side. Even if Keisel doesn't start the defense isn't much younger. But I guess you seem to think the defense is set and you know exactly who is starting. So tell me, oh wise one, who are all the starters?

 

[Vader]

Wow Vader, you are wrong here, and you're trying to save face by claiming we CAN start someone who isn't even on the roster? That's terrible logic, and I'm not jumping that hypothetical.

We now will have Heyward starting for Keisel. There's 10 years (35-25). You want to play the hypothetical game, I can at least do it with players on this roster. Tuitt may start on the other side? If so that's 6 years (27-21), otherwise it's a wash with Thomas.

Mitchell is the starter taking Clark's place 34-27 = 7yrs
Williams or Shazier will start over last year's starter Foote. I'll stick with Williams as the starter and we get 33-24 = 9 years. Shazier would take it to 12 years.
Ike may lose his job to Gay 34-29 = 5 years.
Worlids is a wash as a starter moving from one side to the other
Woodley for Worlids is where the age gap is shown between both starting OLBs. 5 years gained

By my numbers, we will start a defense between 31-45 years younger than last year's starting D week 1.

Wow, you don't even stick to your own "logic". So you think Tuitt is going to start? Really? Keisel has a better chance of starting then Tuitt. Also using Foote is laughable. He got hurt right out of the box. So are you using opening day starters? If so you think Tuitt is going to be the opening day starter? Really? **** me.

Also you obviously don't even know who the starters were LAST year. Gay started 11 games LAST YEAR. He started the 2nd week of the season. So just picking guys out the air is easy for you I guess. Anything just to cause more **** I guess. Jones started the 2nd game last year. I guess he doesn't count in the "age" dept. either? ******* stupid argument.

 

[Bigappleyinzer]

Wow, you don't even stick to your own "logic". So you think Tuitt is going to start? Really? Keisel has a better chance of starting then Tuitt. Also using Foote is laughable. He got hurt right out of the box. So are you using opening day starters? If so you think Tuitt is going to be the opening day starter? Really? **** me.

Also you obviously don't even know who the starters were LAST year. Gay started 11 games LAST YEAR. He started the 2nd week of the season. So just picking guys out the air is easy for you I guess. Anything just to cause more **** I guess. Jones started the 2nd game last year. I guess he doesn't count in the "age" dept. either? ******* stupid argument.

Kiesel is on his couch somewhere with no contract- it is amazing that you are projecting him as a starter before guys already on the roster practicing with the team.

That being said, 'that' newspaper (before the draft mind you) stated that our average age on the defense was ~31- the OLDEST in the league. Maybe I am being presumptuous, but that elevated age equated to frequent injuries and slowness.

The age of the projected defense is now 27- right around the same age of the defense when we won the last SB. Point being- we basically have been trotting out dinosaurs the last several years.

 

[Vader]

Kiesel is on his couch somewhere with no contract- it is amazing that you are projecting him as a starter before guys already on the roster practicing with the team.

That being said, 'that' newspaper (before the draft mind you) stated that our average age on the defense was ~31- the OLDEST in the league. Maybe I am being presumptuous, but that elevated age equated to frequent injuries and slowness.

The age of the projected defense is now 27- right around the same age of the defense when we won the last SB. Point being- we basically have been trotting out dinosaurs the last several years.

Valesco was in church on opening day as well. Also that "newspaper", like Sapp before it, used the opening day roster. Foote had 3 tackles and 5 assists... ALL YEAR. Using him to say the defense was old is asinine. He didn't make it out of the first game of the year. Also, let's say I'm wrong. Keisel doesn't come back. Do you really think that just dropping the age by TWO players makes this team a SB team? The fact is that the ILB position is going to be a rookie and Timmons (a year older). Same age as last year. The CBs are identical to last year so they are all a year older. Mitchell is younger than Clark. Troy is a year older. OLB is the same as last year. Jones and Worilds are a year older. On the DL IF Tuitt starts is he as good as Keisel last year? Heyward and McClendon are a year older.

 

[Supersteeler]

Jeez man, just admit you made a mistake and move on.

Uhhh, you are gonna have a long wait.

 

[Vader]

Uhhh, you are gonna have a long wait.

Wow a smart *** comment from one of the board circle jerks. Big surprise.

 

[Bigappleyinzer]

Valesco was in church on opening day as well. Also that "newspaper", like Sapp before it, used the opening day roster. Foote had 3 tackles and 5 assists... ALL YEAR. Using him to say the defense was old is asinine. He didn't make it out of the first game of the year. Also, let's say I'm wrong. Keisel doesn't come back. Do you really think that just dropping the age by TWO players makes this team a SB team? The fact is that the ILB position is going to be a rookie and Timmons (a year older). Same age as last year. The CBs are identical to last year so they are all a year older. Mitchell is younger than Clark. Troy is a year older. OLB is the same as last year. Jones and Worilds are a year older. On the DL IF Tuitt starts is he as good as Keisel last year? Heyward and McClendon are a year older.

OLB is not the same, b/c the oft injured is Lamar is in Oaktown- and now the OLB pod consist of Worilds (26) Jones (24) and Moats (26).

ILB was young last year, but they were far from fast. I am sure that when Williams was selected in the sixthround, it was not b/c of his speed and most likely that he could be ST fodder.

The DLine is obviously much younger.

In fact, besides CB unfortunately, you cannot argue that the defense has gotten either younger or faster at every position.

 

[Supersteeler]

Wow a smart *** comment from one of the board circle jerks. Big surprise.

I don't find it to be a coincidence that Vader almost perfectly rhymes with Hater.

By board circle jerks, do you mean the 30 or so people that find you and Idiot arrogant and displaying the need to keep up the appearance of perfection in yourselves? If so, then yeah, go ahead and put me in that group. I only feel the need to be condescending to people who act pompous.

 

[Idioteque]

By board circle jerks, do you mean the 30 or so people that find you and Idiot arrogant and displaying the need to keep up the appearance of perfection in yourselves?

Yes, I think that's exactly what he means. Those who get butthurt at internet postings and make notes of who's arrogant, condescending, or pompous.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

This was his rookie season. He had to learn pass rush moves regardless - that was one of the first things Keith Butler said about Jarvis before he even took a single regular season snap. Your post makes no sense. Forgive me if i'm forgetting some obvious example, but what Steelers OLBer dominated his rookie season?

Not to mention that doctors cleared him from having spinal stenosis.

So, you're saying that if he has a great year, it's because you were right. And if he has a ****** year, it's ALSO because you were right.

I swear, some of you ************* MUST hold public office.

Joe

Once again, just like with Timmons, this is about draft position. First Round picks should not be project players unless they are a QB or they are a rare athletic talent that is worth the time to develop him.

Nearly all rookies enter the NFL mentally unprepared to play immediately. Its a lot to learn. This isn't about that, its about Jarvis entering the league physically unable to play at a high level. Whenever you see a guy and you say he'll be great, he just has to change everything about the way he plays, that is a risky pick. Thats the guy you take in later rounds.

Martavis Bryant is physically one of the best WR in the draft, but he has maturity issues, meaning you are hoping you can change his character. He is a good 4th round pick, but he would hVe been a terrible 1st round pick. Do you get that concept?

What steeler OLB dominated his rookie year? What rookie OLB was given as much playing time as Jones? Jason Gildon and Joey Porter each had 2 sacks as a rookie with very little playing time. Chad Brown had 3 sacks splitting time. Woodley had 4 sacks splitting time. Kendrell Bell had 9 as a starter at ILB. Jarvis had 1 as a starter.

All of those players flashed huge potential as rookies even though they were mostly reserve players. None of them were first round picks. Jarvis was a 1st round pick and he was handed the job and looked overmatched most of the time.

I was confident each of those players were going to be great players after watching them as rookies. Can you say that of Jones?

 

[dobre shunka]

I get your numbers and I understand them, however you have to take into account assisted tackles. They're like assists in Hockey. A team scores 3 goals and can have as many as 6 assists assigned to 3 goals. Like tackling, where combined tackles count as one take down, depending on the team, 2-4 people can get credited for an assisted tackle (+Ray Lewis if you're scoring in Baltimore). This is a situation where statistics don't always match the actual numbers. The tackle total is tackles plus assisted tackles, so the total number of tackles counted for a defense will always be higher than the actual number of tackles made in a season by the defense.

I'm aware how tackles are cataloged/credited. However they have already exceeded the max possibility before we even get to the dozens of other plays that don't get credited. Like a player running out of bounds without being pushed or forced, a QB sliding, a player giving himself up, open field fumbles, etc. And juxtaposed against the stats of their opponents, strains reality. If you want to believe them, go ahead.

Also, fwiw, I have no issue with smidrow. Seems like a decent guy. I'm just defending my claim/opinion.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Once again, just like with Timmons, this is about draft position. First Round picks should not be project players unless they are a QB or they are a rare athletic talent that is worth the time to develop him.

Nearly all rookies enter the NFL mentally unprepared to play immediately. Its a lot to learn. This isn't about that, its about Jarvis entering the league physically unable to play at a high level. Whenever you see a guy and you say he'll be great, he just has to change everything about the way he plays, that is a risky pick. Thats the guy you take in later rounds.

Martavis Bryant is physically one of the best WR in the draft, but he has maturity issues, meaning you are hoping you can change his character. He is a good 4th round pick, but he would hVe been a terrible 1st round pick. Do you get that concept?

What steeler OLB dominated his rookie year? What rookie OLB was given as much playing time as Jones? Jason Gildon and Joey Porter each had 2 sacks as a rookie with very little playing time. Chad Brown had 3 sacks splitting time. Woodley had 4 sacks splitting time. Kendrell Bell had 9 as a starter at ILB. Jarvis had 1 as a starter.

All of those players flashed huge potential as rookies even though they were mostly reserve players. None of them were first round picks. Jarvis was a 1st round pick and he was handed the job and looked overmatched most of the time.

I was confident each of those players were going to be great players after watching them as rookies. Can you say that of Jones?

I can see this going in circles really early so i'm going to ask you: what type of season would you have needed to see from Jarvis to have confidence in him?

 

[Idioteque]

So, you're saying that if he has a great year, it's because you were right. And if he has a ****** year, it's ALSO because you were right.

I swear, some of you ************* MUST hold public office.

Joe

Maybe it's not about being right or wrong? Maybe it's just an observation that people make, like "Antonio needs to cut down in dumb mistakes"?

I swear, PTI and First Take are the most annoying thing to happen to sports in years. Now every fan only wants to talk in absolutes and make bold predictions they'll obsess over for ten minutes.

What are your thoughts on tape's post? Was any of it untrue? And what is with this obsession with someone being right or wrong about a draft pick?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Maybe it's not about being right or wrong? Maybe it's just an observation that people make, like "Antonio needs to cut down in dumb mistakes"?

I swear, PTI and First Take are the most annoying thing to happen to sports in years. Now every fan only wants to talk in absolutes and make bold predictions they'll obsess over for ten minutes.

What are your thoughts on tape's post? Was any of it untrue? And what is with this obsession with someone being right or wrong about a draft pick?

If it wasn't about right and wrong, Jarvis would have had the uneventful season that almost all rookies do.

Instead, every snap, every decision involving him was a referendum on the direction of the Steelers. Nevermind that no Steelers OLB has ever had a monster rookie season, with Jarvis it MUST happen or the Steelers are in the tank!

Personally, I hated the Jarvis pick too. Mainly because at the time his spinal stenosis misdiagnosis was not widely known about, and that he was old for a Steelers rookie. His age is still a concern, and like with ALL first round picks, i'm anxious to see where he ends up, but i'm also well aware that the likelihood of him having a monster rookie year was slim to none, and that the only reason he ever saw a start was because Deebo was gone, up to that point Worilds was an absolute failure on the right, and Woodley was still on the team.

With all of that knowledge in mind, saying Jarvis needs to get stronger is obvious. Saying he needs to work on his craft is obvious. (So did all Steelers linebackers who came before him!) If it were just those things, the arguments against him wouldn't be so annoying. What is very annoying is the insistence that because he had a bad pro day, he will NEVER be strong enough, NEVER be fast enough, NEVER be good enough, despite evidence to the contrary. Hell, that happened earlier in this thread!

It's hard to take people seriously when they say in one breath that they're fans, then in the next say NEVER NEVER NEVER despite evidence to the contrary. If Jarvis never develops, that will be a damn shame, and an indictment on the front office, but at very least let's take what we see at face value.

 

[Superman]

Maybe it's not about being right or wrong? Maybe it's just an observation that people make, like "Antonio needs to cut down in dumb mistakes"?

I swear, PTI and First Take are the most annoying thing to happen to sports in years. Now every fan only wants to talk in absolutes and make bold predictions they'll obsess over for ten minutes.

What are your thoughts on tape's post? Was any of it untrue? And what is with this obsession with someone being right or wrong about a draft pick?

how ******* ironic

 

[Supersteeler]

how ******* ironic

That's what I was thinking. Talk about describing yourself to a T.