Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 93

Thread: Why fans don't like this draft.

  1. #31
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelerOfDeVille View Post
    basically what i keep reading is this: "the team didn't address needs when i wanted. and that's why i don't like this draft."

    I could make one change, keep the same rookies and most that dislike it would be happy.

    If they traded back into the 5th round, took Shakur Brown, then signed Loudermilk as a UDFA, most of the folks who dislike this draft would be happy.

    It's dumb. but, true. Same rookies. just when/where they got them...
    Thats a great point. Itís all about perspective.

    I think taking a RB and TE in the 1st 2 rounds while everyone perceived our biggest need being Oline put some people off.

    Another example is people generally liking Roche even though heís a long shot. Just cause we got him in the 6th while some thought he was a 3 or 4 makes him seem better than he is. But odds are heís not gonna be as good as Highsmith let alone likely close to Dupree.

    I also think a lot of fans get caught up in drafting for this year which is never the best strategy for building a team. If you get an intersection of best player and need great, but when the pundits credit you for filling a need, I would guess you drafted suboptimally in that scenario.

  2. #32
    Hall of Famer

    User Info Menu

    the only way to evaluate a draft is 4 years after it occurred. yeeesh, I still remember bustamalu.

    I do agree with the thought the steelers are always looking long term, and that makes some of their selections more reasonable - but I also agree that if we're giving Ben one more year, this draft should be viewed with a 9 month window. And with that window, I'm just not sure. Maybe the steelers will shore up the O-line a bit more with FA, but if we can't run the ball or protect Ben - then what was the point of bringing him back for more more season?
    2014 MNF EXEC CHAMPION!!!

  3. #33
    Hall of Famer

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Starlifter View Post
    the only way to evaluate a draft is 4 years after it occurred. yeeesh, I still remember bustamalu.

    I do agree with the thought the steelers are always looking long term, and that makes some of their selections more reasonable - but I also agree that if we're giving Ben one more year, this draft should be viewed with a 9 month window. And with that window, I'm just not sure. Maybe the steelers will shore up the O-line a bit more with FA, but if we can't run the ball or protect Ben - then what was the point of bringing him back for more more season?
    we were still 12-4 last year.

    I know it ended ugly but people act like we were 4-12 and brought Ben back.

    Not really sure what people expected. A draft with an emphasis on next year?

    Why would we do that?
    Tomlinís coming back so what can you do?


  4. #34
    Hall of Famer

    User Info Menu

    Most favs that wanted the running game fixed thru the draft should be happy with the positions drafted.
    Our first 4 picks should start day one.
    I’m tired of hearing how our new c and t are developmental.
    All the experts agreed that oline was super deep and 4 th rounders are previous drafts 2nd rounders.
    With glaring holes at c, t and rb and the need for a blocking te, these picks should have no problem starting immediately.
    Update:
    In the last decade, 25% of the league has won a super bowl(the Steelers aren't one of them) and now 50% have as many or more playoff wins as the Steelers.

  5. #35
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    All the experts agreed that oline was super deep and 4 th rounders are previous drafts 2nd rounders.
    can you show me one "expert" who said 4th rounders were previous drafts 2nd rounders?
    Dolphin fans in the 90ís who wanted to hold on to Don Shula for what he did in the playoffs in the 70ís...

    Were absolutely correct. Miami hasn't won squat ever since Shula left.

  6. #36
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelerOfDeVille View Post
    You can't say about "the same" on one, then say "better" on the other... c'mon man...
    You were commenting about what the screen shot says.

    They bin the results by category and then bin the players based on their relative position at different drills. Then they color code them. Notice how some are green (all of Humphrey's, most of Green's). Some are yellow (Green's agility). Some are Red (Green's size).

    They also give a ranking for each of the 4 metrics (Size / Explosion / Speed / Agility).

    Humphries scores in those categories: Great / Elite / Great / Great
    Green's scores in those categories: Very Poor / Elite / Elite / Good

    Looks like you are looking more at the raw numbers and I'm looking more at the coloring and binning they do. From this I think it's probably something like:

    Size: Humphrey >>>> Green
    Explosion: Humphrey ~ Green
    Speed: Humphrey < Green
    Agility: Humphrey >> Green

    So they weren't "the same" for Speed. Although the colors seem to imply that the difference is less for speed than agility.

    And they also give an OVERALL GRADE. And 10 > 9.23 (although both scores are high which is what I said in my post). And if they neglected size, it looks to me like they'd have about the same grade with Green being somewhat faster and Humphrey being more agile (despite being bigger).

    Your argument seemed to be that Green was a significantly better athlete than Humphrey. The actual data suggests otherwise.

    Even if you drop out the size (which probably matters for OL), they are probably about equal. With Humphry better in agility and Green faster in the 40. I think one of those characteristics is more important for linemen, and it's not 40 time.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelerOfDeVille View Post
    well, if we can't even agree on the facts, this discussion is lost. broad jump, long jump, 40, 20, 10... that's 5 ATHLETIC measurables.
    As above, I think your argument was something like (1) "Green is more athletic than Humphrey", and that (2) "The RAS supports that argument."

    The reason it stood out right away is that I remembered hearing that Humphrey got a 10 on the relative athletic score (which measures athleticism). And that 10 is the best score possible. That's why I posted these images.

    So, your argument seems to be incorrect. But they are probably fairly comparable which is something I didn't know right when the pick was made (I think I saw NorthCoast post the RAS for Green the next day).

    I am not arguing that Humphrey is a better athlete. Just that he's not a worse athlete.

    Also, if we're establishing facts: Humphrey played C for 3 years in the NCAA. Green played for 4 games. That's the main point I was making when saying "Green has more risk attached to him than Humphrey did".

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelerOfDeVille View Post
    how many chicken nuggets a guy eats is NOT an ATHLETIC measurable. As long as you're legitimately trying to say he's more athletic cuz his got a more giggly belly, i'm not even sure how to respond to that.

    I mean, Big Dan McCullers must have been the most athletic guy in the league. And since Zach Banner's also 6'8", 360, we have ZERO need at tackle, we have the biggest one in the league so it's all covered.
    Size is usually inversely proportional to speed and agility. I can tell you from experience that eating chicken nuggets tends to decrease speed and agility (but increases at least one kind of explosiveness <insert poop emoji>).

    My guess is that Big Dan's speed and agility scores aren't what Humphrey's and Green's are. I also guess that you know that this argument is ridiculous.

    You're the one arguing that one of these guys is significantly more athletic than the other. I said that's not true and the Humphrey is graded as being slightly more athletic (despite Green being very athletic too).

    I certainly understand that size isn't everything. But I also think that Green will be the shortest C in the league if he becomes a starter. Maybe it doesn't matter much when you're talking about 0.5". But maybe it does if no one else makes it.

    Or maybe it's a real detriment, but Green has other factors that allow him to overcome the disadvantage. But it's hard to say too much about that because he's only played 4 games at the position in college.

    That doesn't mean that he'll fail. But I think it certainly means that he's got more risk attached to him than a 3 year starter that was consistently graded as the #2 C in the draft (or sometimes #1* because of Dickerson's injury).

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelerOfDeVille View Post
    I think what you say here is the biggest problem - most of the folks here hadn't heard of Green.
    I certainly hope that you are correct here. It is true that I hadn't heard much and maybe not anything about Green. I imagine that's true for lots of us (had you heard about him as a C in the NFL before we picked him that way?).

    So I think it's natural to see the both responses we're getting to this pick. And I think both are probably based on lies we're telling ourselves.

    Option (1): I never heard of this guy and I wanted Humphrey in the 2nd or Meinerz in the 3rd. Because I never heard / though about this guy he's going to be bad.

    You are correct that I probably fall more into this camp and that the thinking isn't right.

    Option (2): The Steelers picked this guy and they have more information than me and most draft prognosticators so they must be right.

    I think there are people here that fall in this camp and they're wrong too. I think they would be closer to being right if the argument was Green vs. Meinerz.

    As always, the only real answer with the draft is "we have to wait and see". But we tend to want answers now. I don't see how anyone can think there is less risk with Green over Humphrey though.
    Last edited by Northern_Blitz; 05-03-2021 at 05:02 PM.

  7. #37
    Hall of Famer

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by flippy View Post
    Thats a great point. It’s all about perspective.

    I think taking a RB and TE in the 1st 2 rounds while everyone perceived our biggest need being Oline put some people off.

    Another example is people generally liking Roche even though he’s a long shot. Just cause we got him in the 6th while some thought he was a 3 or 4 makes him seem better than he is. But odds are he’s not gonna be as good as Highsmith let alone likely close to Dupree.

    I also think a lot of fans get caught up in drafting for this year which is never the best strategy for building a team. If you get an intersection of best player and need great, but when the pundits credit you for filling a need, I would guess you drafted suboptimally in that scenario.
    the posters who are glass half-full will see the positive and the glass half-empty will see the negative.

    Then you have the level headed posters who wait and see approach. Those guys are boring.. lol
    Tomlinís coming back so what can you do?


  8. #38
    Pro Bowler

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelerOfDeVille View Post
    YES...
    People wanted Creed because he was the best "healthy" C per scouting reports. They knew NOTHING about him and how he fit (or did not fit) in the Steelers system. It was like an Edge rusher whose size and athleticism is clearly a 4-3 DE and not a 3-4 OLB. But, because Kiper or someone said he was the best on the board, you want him. But, he would have been a horrible fit - he was NOT agile enough to comfortably draft there because of what the Steelers want from their C.

    I don't know that Green will succeed, but he at least has the athleticism. But, Creed would have been a busted pick with the guy constantly missing second-level blocks, pulls, etc. I thank the heavens Colbert's making the picks, not some of these armchair GMs we have here.
    Who are you referring too? Which posters? You know that Creed would have been a busted pick, but give Green a maybe. That;s rich. Creed proved to be a house of a blocker at the senior bowl and in clips. He worked out unusually well at his pro day showing speed and leaping ability people didn't think he had, so here goes your agility theory. If you like stats he didn't give up a sack last season, meanwhile others questioned green as a Pass blocker. I think Green is lacking in height, weight and has short arms, a not so attractive tripple and I'm right. Better than what we have, sure. A long term answer, I think not.

    If you want a real powerhouse who can move, Meinerz should have been the pick.

    https://www.si.com/college/oklahoma/football/creed-humphreys-monster-pro-day-performance-was-like-watching-frankenstien
    Plan to spend 75 million in cap space in 2022 ( most in the NFL ) and use the 2 comp picks ( 3rd and 5th ) for a killer 2022 draft. We will be back hopefully with better coaching.

  9. #39
    Legend

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern_Blitz View Post
    Living in TO, I assume that you're familiar with organizations that make frequently poor decisions (although maybe this year the team looks really good...outside the net anyway <insert Leafs emoji>).
    Growing up in the Sittler, McDonald, Salming days I was about as die-hard a fan as you'd find. I was still a fan through the '80s and '90s ineptitude. Around 2001 I got a DirectTV dish and a pirated card. Of course this was back in the days when you could not just watch 3, 4,5 games a night on regular TV. I began watching games from all over the league and realized exactly how awful it was watching those Leaf teams. Once all of the hacked DirectTV cards got shut down, I no longer had access to the whole league and could not stomach watching the Leafs. To make a long story short, those horrible teams turned me off of hockey and stopped watching for years. Today I am barely a casual fan and will watch once in awhile when nothing else is on.

  10. #40
    Starter

    User Info Menu

    I said in another thread before the draft that all I wanted to see was them not to reach for guys, and to avoid 'tweeners', projects, etc. But as I said the other day, they just can't help themselves.

    Harris is a pure stud, and picking him was the right move.
    Freirmuth is a good player. He's not great, and this is a pure luxury pick you'd expect from a team with few holes
    Green may be good, but who knows. He's played 4 games at center in his career. This is a reach, and a project.
    Moore and Johnson are fine for where they were drafted
    Laudermilk is beyond a reach, and the fact they traded up to get him is embarrassing.
    Don't know anything about Roche and Norwood.
    Drafting a Punter to come in and 'compete' with an average punter is a complete waste of a pick.

    If they took Harris, one of the centers in the 2nd, and a TE in the 3rd, I could live with it. Although TE was not something we should have drafted in the first 4 rounds, unless we were getting the guy from Florida. But, in typical Tomlin and Colbert fashion, they did things ass backwards, reached for guys, and drafted projects. This is why nobody except the most diehard fanboys graded the draft higher than a B, and that's with hitting a homerun with the first pick

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •