WHY did we take Emmanuel Sanders?

PhantomJB93 · 04-23-2010, 11:11 PM

If we were really so high on Worilds we probably could have had him in the 3rd. We could have had Golden Tate at 52. Sanders has no redeeming qualities, he's not fast, he's not tall, he's basically a far less talented, less physical version of Golden Tate. I am ASHAMED of our front office. The Worilds pick was bad enough with Tate, Sean Lee, Mt Cody AND Gerhart on the board but then going out and picking a WR in the 3rd just made me want to punch our FO in the face.

Either the Rooneys have gone senile or hired the Pirates' front office to make their decision for them.

The Duke · 04-23-2010, 11:13 PM

to piss you off

Shoes · 04-23-2010, 11:18 PM

Do a little research..........

http://www.steelers.com/video-and-au...d-0ff8c9e371bf

***tony hipchest*** · 04-23-2010, 11:21 PM

- PANIC!!!

*flush*

PhantomJB93 · 04-23-2010, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

- PANIC!!!

*flush*

Yes, it is the time to panic. We blew this draft. All our useful picks our gone and 2/3 of them we wasted...and even then the 1 good one could have been utilized better. You can't rely on "finding gems later" yes it happens but making picks like the Steelers did today is just embarrassing with such talent on the board. The bottom line is Worilds was a waste of a second pick, even if he pans out well it was NOT a smart decision and would have almost definitely been there in the 3rd for us. Sanders is a waste of a pick in the 3rd because of we're gonna take a not-tall receiver early we could have just taken Golden Tate, who is all-around better, at 52 which would have been one of the steals of the draft, not to mention he is the closest thing we will ever see to Hines again...

Anybody who is NOT embarrassed or upset with this draft has insane blind faith in the Steelers. They have been reliable in the past but today's decisions were just flat-out stupid, there's a fine line between "reaching a bit for a prospect you like" and blowing picks like our FO did today.

CaliStillersFan · 04-23-2010, 11:39 PM

If you think you know more than Colbert , Tomlin and the rest of the scouting staff, I suggest you submit a resume.

All 3 picks have been solid picks. Yes we all wanted to see them take a CB higher but if you watched the draft you would know how many of the top talented CB's went off the board in the first 2 rounds. They got 7 picks left so they will probably pick up 2 tomorrow.

The only thing I was bummed about so far was that Mount Cody went to Baltimore. I thought that he would have been a good replacement for Hampton but they needed to bring in a quality OLB to take Harrisons spot within the next 2 seasons - which is usually how long it takes to teach a LB our defense.

Yes we have plenty of WR's on our roster but lets look at them:

Ward - is old. I love him but he cant play forever
Randle El - wasn't that great of a WR in his prime let alone 5 years later
Battle - couldn't win a starting job in San Fran
Sweed - no explanation needed
Wallace - only solid WR that is young

They needed a playmaker under the age of 30, so now they got one. He will challenge Randle El for the slot this season.

cloppbeast · 04-23-2010, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomJB93

Yes, it is the time to panic. We blew this draft. All our useful picks our gone and 2/3 of them we wasted...and even then the 1 good one could have been utilized better. You can't rely on "finding gems later" yes it happens but making picks like the Steelers did today is just embarrassing with such talent on the board. The bottom line is Worilds was a waste of a second pick, even if he pans out well it was NOT a smart decision and would have almost definitely been there in the 3rd for us. Sanders is a waste of a pick in the 3rd because of we're gonna take a not-tall receiver early we could have just taken Golden Tate, who is all-around better, at 52 which would have been one of the steals of the draft, not to mention he is the closest thing we will ever see to Hines again...

Anybody who is NOT embarrassed or upset with this draft has insane blind faith in the Steelers. They have been reliable in the past but today's decisions were just flat-out stupid, there's a fine line between "reaching a bit for a prospect you like" and blowing picks like our FO did today.

I'd have to say, based on the fact not one of these players have suited up for as much as a preseason game, this post is a tad premature.

PhantomJB93 · 04-23-2010, 11:42 PM

I didnt have a problem with drafting a replacement receiver but my problem is if we're picking a receiver this early WHY THE HELL did we pass on Golden Tate for Worilds? We took Worilds and then Sanders when we most likely could have had Tate and then Worilds...

The Duke · 04-23-2010, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomJB93

I didnt have a problem with drafting a replacement receiver but my problem is if we're picking a receiver this early WHY THE HELL did we pass on Golden Tate for Worilds? We took Worilds and then Sanders when we most likely could have had Tate and then Worilds...

Maybe they liked sanders better than Tate and didn't want to risk not getting worilds

is it that hard to understand?

cloppbeast · 04-24-2010, 12:12 AM

The dude is an orangutan. He might be short, but he's got long arms. He's fast, quick, and shifty. Of the WRs, he was the third fastest in the draft, second fastest in the cone drill, third fastest in the shuttle, and believe it or not, he had the 5th highest vertical. Needless to say, he's a heck of an athlete. I know these measurements don't prove he'll be a great player, but he's worth risk in the 3rd round. He could develop into a better version of Wes Welker.

04-23-2010, 11:11 PM	#1
PhantomJB93 Assistant Coach Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Blacksburg, VA Posts: 1,401 Gender: Male Member Number: 13907 Thanks: 24 Thanked 99 Times in 67 Posts	WHY did we take Emmanuel Sanders? If we were really so high on Worilds we probably could have had him in the 3rd. We could have had Golden Tate at 52. Sanders has no redeeming qualities, he's not fast, he's not tall, he's basically a far less talented, less physical version of Golden Tate. I am ASHAMED of our front office. The Worilds pick was bad enough with Tate, Sean Lee, Mt Cody AND Gerhart on the board but then going out and picking a WR in the 3rd just made me want to punch our FO in the face. Either the Rooneys have gone senile or hired the Pirates' front office to make their decision for them.

04-23-2010, 11:13 PM	#2
The Duke Living Legend Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,459 Gender: Male Member Number: 4800 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: WHY did we take Emmanuel Sanders? to piss you off

04-23-2010, 11:18 PM	#3
Shoes Team Captain Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 688 Member Number: 6382 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: WHY did we take Emmanuel Sanders? Do a little research.......... http://www.steelers.com/video-and-au...d-0ff8c9e371bf

04-23-2010, 11:21 PM	#4
*tony hipchest* IRONMAN a.k.a. Tony Stark Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Give me back my game... Posts: 34,344 Member Number: 658 Thanks: 184 Thanked 236 Times in 167 Posts	Re: WHY did we take Emmanuel Sanders? - PANIC!!! flush __________________

04-23-2010, 11:39 PM	#6
CaliStillersFan Starter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Northern California Posts: 436 Gender: Male Member Number: 11604 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: WHY did we take Emmanuel Sanders? If you think you know more than Colbert , Tomlin and the rest of the scouting staff, I suggest you submit a resume. All 3 picks have been solid picks. Yes we all wanted to see them take a CB higher but if you watched the draft you would know how many of the top talented CB's went off the board in the first 2 rounds. They got 7 picks left so they will probably pick up 2 tomorrow. The only thing I was bummed about so far was that Mount Cody went to Baltimore. I thought that he would have been a good replacement for Hampton but they needed to bring in a quality OLB to take Harrisons spot within the next 2 seasons - which is usually how long it takes to teach a LB our defense. Yes we have plenty of WR's on our roster but lets look at them: Ward - is old. I love him but he cant play forever Randle El - wasn't that great of a WR in his prime let alone 5 years later Battle - couldn't win a starting job in San Fran Sweed - no explanation needed Wallace - only solid WR that is young They needed a playmaker under the age of 30, so now they got one. He will challenge Randle El for the slot this season.

	Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums? • Intelligent and friendly discussions. • It's free and it's quick. Always. • Enter events in the forums calendar. • Very user friendly software. • Exclusive contests and giveaways.
Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here	Our 2013 Goal: $400.00 - To Date: $00.00 (00.00%)

04-23-2010, 11:42 PM	#8
PhantomJB93 Assistant Coach Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Blacksburg, VA Posts: 1,401 Gender: Male Member Number: 13907 Thanks: 24 Thanked 99 Times in 67 Posts	Re: WHY did we take Emmanuel Sanders? I didnt have a problem with drafting a replacement receiver but my problem is if we're picking a receiver this early WHY THE HELL did we pass on Golden Tate for Worilds? We took Worilds and then Sanders when we most likely could have had Tate and then Worilds...

04-24-2010, 12:12 AM	#10
cloppbeast Team Captain Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Waynesboro Posts: 860 Gender: Male Member Number: 16124 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Re: WHY did we take Emmanuel Sanders? The dude is an orangutan. He might be short, but he's got long arms. He's fast, quick, and shifty. Of the WRs, he was the third fastest in the draft, second fastest in the cone drill, third fastest in the shuttle, and believe it or not, he had the 5th highest vertical. Needless to say, he's a heck of an athlete. I know these measurements don't prove he'll be a great player, but he's worth risk in the 3rd round. He could develop into a better version of Wes Welker.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)