There are 109 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Dri Archer vs DeAnthony Thomas

Dri Archer vs DeAnthony Thomas

with Dri Archers impressive combine i can understand the interest, but im curious why Deanthony Thomas is now just an after thought.
I'd go with Thomas mainly because he played against better teams than Archer.We would have to spend an earlier pick on him because he went to Oregon compared to Kent St.They're basically the same player though.
Archer is just an all around better player. I don't think De'Anthony Thomas should be taken before the 6th round. He's purely a returner and he was extremely underwhelming at the combine. Archer put up a ton of yards in college and could eventually develop into a slot receiver possibly. He's also a better athlete than Thomas and will probably be a better returner.

Thomas is 5'9 174 with tiny arms and hands (29 7/8" and 8 1/8"). He is faster than the 4.5 he ran at the combine, but I don't think he's as fast as advertised prior to the combine. He may be a marginal improvement over Lamichael James as a returner, but I'm not sure that's even worth a draft pick.
[ Edited by eastcoast49ersfan on Apr 6, 2014 at 6:50 PM ]
  • pfizz
  • Member
  • Posts: 171
ehhh neither. this team has already shown they dont know to utilize these scatback type of players.
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
Archer is just an all around better player. I don't think De'Anthony Thomas should be taken before the 6th round. He's purely a returner and he was extremely underwhelming at the combine. Archer put up a ton of yards in college and could eventually develop into a slot receiver possibly. He's also a better athlete than Thomas and will probably be a better returner.

Thomas is 5'9 174 with tiny arms and hands (29 7/8" and 8 1/8"). He is faster than the 4.5 he ran at the combine, but I don't think he's as fast as advertised prior to the combine. He may be a marginal improvement over Lamichael James as a returner, but I'm not sure that's even worth a draft pick.
Archer and Thomas or nearly identical in size (Thomas 1 inch taller, 1 lbs more) and arms/hands (Archer 1 1/8 inch longer arms, and 6/8 of an inch bigger hands) . So discrediting Thomas for those attributes, should also discredit Archer.
Plus Thomas put up more yards receiving, catches, and TDs plus has more experience in kick returns than Archer (neither has much Punt Return experience; 16 returns for Thomas, and 6 returns for Archer). Thomas had 500 less rushing yards and 2 more rushing TDs despite less attempts. All in 1 year less of work and playing against remarkably better competition. So don't say Archer put up big #s and Thomas is just a return man, when Thomas has proven statically to be better than Archer in everything in 1 less year to do it.
Originally posted by Travisty13:
Archer and Thomas or nearly identical in size (Thomas 1 inch taller, 1 lbs more) and arms/hands (Archer 1 1/8 inch longer arms, and 6/8 of an inch bigger hands) . So discrediting Thomas for those attributes, should also discredit Archer.
Plus Thomas put up more yards receiving, catches, and TDs plus has more experience in kick returns than Archer (neither has much Punt Return experience; 16 returns for Thomas, and 6 returns for Archer). Thomas had 500 less rushing yards and 2 more rushing TDs despite less attempts. All in 1 year less of work and playing against remarkably better competition. So don't say Archer put up big #s and Thomas is just a return man, when Thomas has proven statically to be better than Archer in everything in 1 less year to do it.

Archer was 3 pounds heavier at the combine and the gap in hand size and arm length is actually pretty significant when they both have small arms and hands. Archer is functionally bigger and is much faster than Thomas. I doubt there is a WR in the league with hands as small as Thomas'. Archer has those physical advantages in addition to more speed.

Archer barely played his first 2 seasons, but he put up 2000 yards from scrimmage his junior year which is way more impressive than anything Thomas has done. Thomas' stats are also inflated from playing in an extremely explosive offense that wore teams down. He wouldn't have averaged the yard per carry that he did in most offenses. Yes, he played against better competition, but he had significantly better teammates as well and played in an offense that always puts up gaudy numbers and yards/play. De'Anthony Thomas's stats declined each year.

I still can't get over the fact that you're saying Thomas is statistically better because Archer played a few downs his freshman and sophomore year. If he played one down would you still count that as a full season? If he hadn't played at all back then, does that make him a better player? Archer's stats the past 2 seasons (the only seasons he's played consistently) are much better than any 2 of Thomas's seasons.
I'll take Archer. Thomas seems to get overrated on the basis of having played at Oregon but he left a lot to be desired. Him sitting around on the sidelines having a giggle while Oregon was losing to Stanford didn't sit right with me either.
Oregon's RB's always average 6-7 yards per carry. It's a product of their system and offensive line. Their 4 leading rushers among RB's this year (Thomas was 3rd) all averaged 6.2 yards per carry or better. Thomas should be averaging more than those other guys on his team because of his speed and the fact that he isn't being used in short yardage situations, but he's not that good. Kenjon Barner was better than Thomas and was drafted in the 6th round. Oregon's offense and system makes players look better (and faster) than they really are because they get players in space against tired defenders.
I'd go with Archer.
  • LVJay
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 9,786
I like both of them (too bad we can't have one or both). However, we'll be drafting for need and/or BPA. If it's the latter (BPA), those two will get passed up by us because (IMO) we'll probably find someone else to fit in....

Also, I wouldn't pick either one until the 9th round
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
Originally posted by Travisty13:
Archer and Thomas or nearly identical in size (Thomas 1 inch taller, 1 lbs more) and arms/hands (Archer 1 1/8 inch longer arms, and 6/8 of an inch bigger hands) . So discrediting Thomas for those attributes, should also discredit Archer.
Plus Thomas put up more yards receiving, catches, and TDs plus has more experience in kick returns than Archer (neither has much Punt Return experience; 16 returns for Thomas, and 6 returns for Archer). Thomas had 500 less rushing yards and 2 more rushing TDs despite less attempts. All in 1 year less of work and playing against remarkably better competition. So don't say Archer put up big #s and Thomas is just a return man, when Thomas has proven statically to be better than Archer in everything in 1 less year to do it.

Archer was 3 pounds heavier at the combine and the gap in hand size and arm length is actually pretty significant when they both have small arms and hands. Archer is functionally bigger and is much faster than Thomas. I doubt there is a WR in the league with hands as small as Thomas'. Archer has those physical advantages in addition to more speed.

Archer barely played his first 2 seasons, but he put up 2000 yards from scrimmage his junior year which is way more impressive than anything Thomas has done. Thomas' stats are also inflated from playing in an extremely explosive offense that wore teams down. He wouldn't have averaged the yard per carry that he did in most offenses. Yes, he played against better competition, but he had significantly better teammates as well and played in an offense that always puts up gaudy numbers and yards/play. De'Anthony Thomas's stats declined each year.

I still can't get over the fact that you're saying Thomas is statistically better because Archer played a few downs his freshman and sophomore year. If he played one down would you still count that as a full season? If he hadn't played at all back then, does that make him a better player? Archer's stats the past 2 seasons (the only seasons he's played consistently) are much better than any 2 of Thomas's seasons.
Archer, if anything by your argument, is that he played in only 1 full season than. Was hurt most of his Sr year. He had 58, 40, 159, and 68 carries from frosh to senior year. So on a bad Kent State team he couldn't even get on the field his 1st 2 years, than in a predominantly run oriented offense his Jr. year finally excelled, only 2 play sporadically his Sr. year. So if anything he's a 1 year wonder that looked good at the Combine. I'm not knocking Archer (I'd actually like us to draft him), but saying he's way better just isn't the case in my opinion. I don't view either as a RB, I think both are OW (Offensive Weapon) but Thomas has shown more as a WR/Returner/and RB than Archer has. And Thomas' stats didn't decline each year (he increased his yards from Freshman to Soph than declined some his Jr year because of an ankle injury that held him out of almost 4 games). Also, when was Thomas a feature back? Never, he's shared time with a stacked backfield yet still was so explosive they found ways to utilize him. I'm going to bet Archer wouldn't have ever gotten that same attention if the roles were reversed. I'm not an Oregon nor a Pac12 fanboy either (I'm a Purdue/b1g guy), so I have no biased in this debate. The only thing that Archer has him beat at is timed speed at the Combine.

And saying Thomas would have the smallest hands - Terrance Williams measured 8 3/4th last year (a big 1/2 inch bigger than Thomas) and he certainly did fine his rookie year. Chris Givens has 8 1/4 hands, Kendall Wright 8 5/8th.

All I'm saying is I think Archer (slated to go about 2 rounds higher) is being overrated by some way to much. When, essentially, the same exact player can be had later in Thomas.
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
Oregon's RB's always average 6-7 yards per carry. It's a product of their system and offensive line. Their 4 leading rushers among RB's this year (Thomas was 3rd) all averaged 6.2 yards per carry or better. Thomas should be averaging more than those other guys on his team because of his speed and the fact that he isn't being used in short yardage situations, but he's not that good. Kenjon Barner was better than Thomas and was drafted in the 6th round. Oregon's offense and system makes players look better (and faster) than they really are because they get players in space against tired defenders.

Against tired defenders? When does Oregon play their starters deep into games? Rarely. They usually have such a lead by halftime that 2nd and 3rd string guys are the ones racking up stats versus tired defenders late in games.
If we go midget I'd rather see us take someone like Albert(5'9 202lbs) Wilson or Bruce Ellington(5'9 197lbs) both are stout , fast maybe challenge for PR/KR duties ......
I'd rather take Bruce Ellington.

He's better built for the NFL, and when he's not returning kicks and punts he can play WR. Not only does that fill another need for us, but I actually think he will be a better WR than those guys will be RBs.
Originally posted by Travisty13:
Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
Oregon's RB's always average 6-7 yards per carry. It's a product of their system and offensive line. Their 4 leading rushers among RB's this year (Thomas was 3rd) all averaged 6.2 yards per carry or better. Thomas should be averaging more than those other guys on his team because of his speed and the fact that he isn't being used in short yardage situations, but he's not that good. Kenjon Barner was better than Thomas and was drafted in the 6th round. Oregon's offense and system makes players look better (and faster) than they really are because they get players in space against tired defenders.

Against tired defenders? When does Oregon play their starters deep into games? Rarely. They usually have such a lead by halftime that 2nd and 3rd string guys are the ones racking up stats versus tired defenders late in games.

Players can also be tired during any given drive early in the game when Oregon gets the next play off so fast that the other team can't sub players in and out. I actually think Lamichael James is better than Barner or Thomas and he isn't doing a whole lot for us. I don't know if Archer of any of these guys games translates well to the NFL.