Colbert 50 hits & 105 misses - 3 keepers per draft

This draft will prove as pathetic as 2009 and 2012. Why Colbert gets a pass for so many sh-t drafts is beyond me.

I could do better with NO scout unit, period. Just take the obvious pick; the make it much more complex than needed to make themselves look smarter.

 

yeah that's how guys like Ryan Leaf got drafted

 

Squeak

 

How loud has that noise become since the last time?

 

Keenan Lewis falls under the dreaded Dick Lebeau rookies don't play rule. Even greats like Troy had a slow start under that defense. Once Butler took over, they simplified things to get contributions from their rookie class.

 

Not so much loud, but repetitive. And seems to show up everywhere now.

 

I'm thinking its time to remove the Watt part?

 

2008 and 2011 were most disappointing for me. I honestly thought those were great drafts. I thought curtis brown and cortez allen were both gonna be starters

 

Then Justin hunter and JJ Wilcox should be starting for us.

 

I would like to see how Colbert compares to the rest of the league GM’s. Also I think there’s a lot the list doesn’t take in. I’m not saying Colbert doesn’t have his misses but late round picks are crapshoot. The talent may be there but the player may not have the want to or the mindset to become a solid contributor. Which isn’t the coaches or gm’s fault.

 

Please provide proof of the obvious pick and why the picks made aren’t as good. And don’t even consider citing other web sites or pundits. You claimed you could do it without help. Each and ever pick, do it here and now. You made the claim.

 

Intriguing indeed.


Like jeh, I also would like to see how you would achieve this.

 

Polamalu started out as a rookie in Tim Lewis's defense in '03 and didn't play much. LeBeau returned as DC in 2004 and Polamalu was the starting SS.

 

Do you use random capitalization and differs when you should be using different when you teach?

That you were a teacher makes your original post even worse. You should know how important it is to properly explain your criteria, and more importantly, to choose your criteria properly. I have worked as a teacher as well. Teachers have to do a much better job choosing fair criteria and explaining it properly than you have done.

My opinion is different (that is the correct word choice there) because I'm not doing this as an exercise in bashing Colbert. I don't agree with how the team drafted this year, but as I said, your data is irrelevant if you don't compare it to how other league general managers do. That is who Colbert is competing against. If the average NFL general manager adds 30 players who are contributors for at least two seasons for every 150 choices and Colbert had 50, then he's doing a much better job than the competition. Of course, I don't know if it is 30 players for the rest of the league. It could be 40 or 60. You offered something as if your data was clear, but it wasn't because you don't have those numbers.

Your criteria for identifying a key contributor is ill defined at best. I'm not sure you defined it at all. Your decision to include the 2017 draft in your data when contributing for more than one season is your criteria is invalid and unfair. Even in a vacuum of just looking at what Colbert has done without comparing it to the rest of the league, your data doesn't paint a full and accurate picture.

 

Formerscribe, post: 567569Do you use random capitalization and differs when you should be using different when you teach? Even to the casual observer it should be plainly obvious there is nothing random about my use of capitals unless the reader has severe reading comprehension problem.

That you were a teacher makes your original post even worse. You should know how important it is to properly explain your criteria for students. Yes for my students, for a sports board no. Again with adequate reading comprehension skills it is plainly obvious that I was using my criteria for my choices. I was inviting others to use their criteria which I knew would be different. Sorry you missed the obvious point. and more importantly, to choose your criteria properly My criteria are always correctly chosen by my standard. This is the same as can be said for anyone else choosing their criteria. I have worked as a teacher as well. Teachers have to do a much better job choosing fair criteria and explaining it properly than you have done. I taught at a college level and expected my students to have excellent reading comprehension. I am eminently fair. Again usually 90%+ earned, EARNED (not random), an A or B. However, I never allowed a student or a fellow professor to cajole or coerce me into lowering the bar. Students will rise to the level of expectations particularly when they realize all their whining will come to naught. When they realize they learned much more than they expected, they return for more. I was recruited by the chairperson because some number of the computer science students worked at McDonnell Douglas and attended internal classes taught by me. Dr. Sakuri wanted to know what was expected of her students when they entered a high tech industry. I taught for 6 years. Then I joined Oracle Corp. and traveled too much to teach. It was the most rewarding thing I ever did. When a student has what I termed the "moment of clarity." I could see it in their eyes. I knew they understood and I was pumped. My last class period was always for the seniors but anyone could attend. I taught them how to interview for a job in high tech. I hope your teaching experience was as or more rewarding.


My opinion is different (that is the correct word choice there) because I'm not doing this as an exercise in bashing Colbert. Nor I! I simply stated my view of his and his team, and the coaches drafting success over the years. Personally I think 3 successful picks out of 7 per year on average is really good. There have been way more first round QB dudes than studs. I'll bet the so-called draft experts had them all as sure things ... NOT! (NOT RANDOM!) I don't agree with how the team drafted this year, but as I said, your data is irrelevant if you don't compare it to how other league general managers do. WRONG! That is lowering the bar. I was in a very competitive high tech industry, information technology. We did not hire people just good enough to work at ABC Company. We hired the best. Well we tried. If we failed, the situation was rectified very quickly. We never measured ourselves against the competition; we measured ourselves against our own ambitious goals. It is irrelevant to measure yourself against a bunch of underachievers. That is who Colbert is competing against. If the average NFL general manager adds 30 players who are contributors for at least two seasons for every 150 choices and Colbert had 50, then he's doing a much better job than the competition. Of course, I don't know if it is 30 players for the rest of the league. It could be 40 or 60. You offered something as if your data was clear, but it wasn't because you don't have those numbers. Don't need those numbers. I never gave a performance review where I said to a manager well you failed to meet your goals but you did outperform 2 out 5 managers who worked for the competition. Duh! You never worked for a highly competitive company. I hope your students did not learn this from you. Yikes!

Your criteria for identifying a key contributor is ill defined at best. By your lower standards (I pity your students) this is true; but not by my standards. I'm not sure you defined it at all. If one has adequate reading comprehension, it is obvious. Your decision to include the 2017 draft in your data when contributing for more than one season is your criteria is invalid and unfair. Yeah! Too bad! However, I gave Juju and TJ a pass because unless they break a leg, they are keepers. The others are works-in-progress. Even in a vacuum of just looking at what Colbert has done without comparing it to the rest of the league, your data doesn't paint a full and accurate picture. How? I presented all of his picks for every draft since he has been the GM.

 

I don't have low standards for my students, but I do have fair standards. If your standards in the classroom are anything like what you did here, it is your students who needed the sympathy.

Your standards are invalid and unclear. And you have no answer for my point about including 2017. You may have been fair with your students, though we only have your word on that, but you aren't even trying in this instance.

I already explained how your data doesn't show a complete and accurate picture. You didn't compare it to the rest of the league.

By your logic we should be criticizing Antonio Brown for not catching 200 passes last season. Sure, nobody else has ever caught that many, but we must hold him to a higher standard. And Roethlisberger should be completing 90 percent of his passes. How can you look at a success level below 80 percent as anything but bad? Forget what every other quarterback in the league does! We only need to pay attention to what the STEELERS do!

Translate this to baseball. Jose Altuve only batted .346! He sucks! That means he wasn't even getting four hits every 10 at-bats. We need a higher standard! Anything below .650 is failing!

 

That's useful for context. But not sure if I'm translating it well into the thread topic, so help me out here.

If we are measuring against our own goals, then each pick probably needs to be considered against the part they played in achieving that goal. So if that's the measure, then I can see your point about not including Keenan Lewis as a hit; but you would also have to expand the hits to include quality back-ups and solid contributors, as addressing all the needs of a roster will all be part of a GMs goals in each draft.

Also, are you suggesting the rest of the league are a bunch of underachievers?

 

Actually, there really is only one way to evaluate a draft and at the same time compare it to every other GM in the league:

What was their record?

Since the Steelers are very minor players in free agency, and build primarily through the draft, compare their record over that period to that of every other team. If we're in the bottom half, I'll agree with you, that Colbert does a lousy job drafting. If we're barely in the top half, I'll disagree with you, but I'll see your point.

If we're in the top, oh, two- quit whining and face the fact that Colbert knows what the hell he's doing.

 

No, apparently 24 others.

8. Steelers: Kevin Colbert
"If Colbert was as good at finding defensive talent as he is at finding offensive talent, he’d be a top-five general manager. But as good as the Steelers offense has been, it’s defense has continued to drag the team down in the playoffs. And Colbert has used a lot of draft capital to shore up the pass rush and secondary. Those picks haven’t paid off yet."

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/05/nf...2017-bill-belichick-john-schneider-john-elway

 

While he is GM, I do have to factor in how much input goes into his decisions from the coaches on any one decision and how much is factored into it from the scouting department too. I again revert back to better coaching on the offensive side of the ball then the defensive side. We have finally made some good changes in that department. Hopefully for the better. As I also said we have had a change ongoing in the scouting department over the last several years. I think that makes a difference as well. Not everything is as it seems on the surface. Many factors come into play in this whole team building process that most don't consider.

 

I guess you think being a 1,000 yard running back or wideout is a good thing. Wrong! It was a good thing when they played 10 games in a season. Since they now play 16 games in a season, the goal is to be a 1,600 yard player. A 1,000 yard player is quite pedestrian.

 

Missed

Conner - played well in first year as a backup
Sutton - far too early to discount
Dobbs - far too early to discount

Ayers - had a functional role as a 7TH ROUND draft pick

Daniel McCullers - backup tackle in

Not going to bother to go through every season to where you missed.

 

Without spending the time to go into each year to show how your list doesn't add up.

If Colbert sucked so bad at drafting and talent acquisition, why do we currently have a superbowl contending team?

Also how bad does he suck for the Steelers to make the playoffs 12 out of his 17 years in Pittsburgh?

How about the two superbowls during his reign?

Or the 14 seasons above .500 winning percentage?

 

Because the Steelers are such notorious over-spenders in Free Agency?