steelerfury.com
http://www.steelerfury.com/forum/

Artie "Wiffs" Burns
http://www.steelerfury.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9443
Page 2 of 5

Author:  BarryFoster [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

SP wrote:
bradshaw2ben wrote:
You know he had 4 tackles vs the run on Sunday night, right?

First four all season. That's the problem.


But it's an improvement

He ain't no Artie Choke

Author:  bradshaw2ben [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

I'm merely saying he didn't avoid contact this week, so either he's feeling better or someone coached him, or something.

Author:  cop1211 [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

A lot of people including myself have been calling for years for corners that cover first and tackle second.
Burns can cover, I’m good with that.

Author:  Steelergenie [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

He only makes the tackle when no one else is around and he's forced to do it. That's not going to cut it against superior teams.

Author:  ChicagoSteel [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

cop1211 wrote:
A lot of people including myself have been calling for years for corners that cover first and tackle second.
Burns can cover, I’m good with that.


You're wrong. I want a leather helmet, sweater wearing, 1940's Grabowski that can break ribs, lost his nose in the war and runs a 5.4 40.

No...I'm wrong. Fuck Colbert for not drafting one, but TWO Rod Woodsons in the last 3 years.

No no...it's all wrong...bring back Cockrell and bench Burns. Ross could tackle the shit out guys between torchings.

Author:  Steelergenie [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

What's so unusual about covering the pass and tackling? If the pass is completed, you still have to tackle or stop the run. Elite QB's will pick him apart.

Author:  Kodiak [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

ChicagoSteel wrote:
Fuck Colbert for not drafting one, but TWO Rod Woodsons in the last 3 years.


?? :shock: ??

Author:  Scunge [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

I am disappointed in Burns this year. I expected a big jump from his rookie year to year two. I don't see it.

Everybody was so down on Ross Cockrell, calling him soft, can't play the run, not physical enough and yet Burns is playing softer than Cockrell ever did. Just don't understand it. And it isn't like he is this shut down CB who you can say hey, we drafted him to be a stud coverage guy. Where are the INTs? The broken up passes? Seems like QBs are targeting him more because Haden is that CB that we want Burns to be, they avoid Haden and throw more at Burns.

When we played Cincy and I got my first chance to watch William Jackson the 3rd, it was eye opening. So, that is what a first round CB is supposed to perform like, tight coverage, playing the catch point, knocking the football out of Antonio Brown's hands. Yes! What we have in Burns in nowhere close to that, and may never be.

I don't know what this season would have been like without Mike Hilton and Joe Haden. If we had gone into this season with Burns, Cockrell and Gay as our trio, we might be lucky to be 4-4.

If people are honest, the two weakest performers on defense are which two players? For me that is Burns and Mitchell. They are the two biggest weaknesses that teams exploit and it isn't even close. One we spent a first round pick on and the other we signed to a 5 year $25 million contract. Not really getting a good return on those investments.

Author:  Kodiak [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

Scunge wrote:
Seems like QBs are targeting him more because Haden is that CB that we want Burns to be, they avoid Haden and throw more at Burns.


To be fair, both are arguably hamstrung by the cushions our defense loves. But Haden being a better match-up for us on #2 receivers doesn't make him bettern than Burns on #1's. Both also have Mike Mitchell having their backs, and like you said....

Burns has gotten beat, and has not been as good as hoped. But I don't think he's been bad by any stretch.

Author:  Jobus Rum [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artie "Wiffs" Burns

Scunge wrote:
I am disappointed in Burns this year. I expected a big jump from his rookie year to year two. I don't see it.

Everybody was so down on Ross Cockrell, calling him soft, can't play the run, not physical enough and yet Burns is playing softer than Cockrell ever did. Just don't understand it. And it isn't like he is this shut down CB who you can say hey, we drafted him to be a stud coverage guy. Where are the INTs? The broken up passes? Seems like QBs are targeting him more because Haden is that CB that we want Burns to be, they avoid Haden and throw more at Burns.

When we played Cincy and I got my first chance to watch William Jackson the 3rd, it was eye opening. So, that is what a first round CB is supposed to perform like, tight coverage, playing the catch point, knocking the football out of Antonio Brown's hands. Yes! What we have in Burns in nowhere close to that, and may never be.

I don't know what this season would have been like without Mike Hilton and Joe Haden. If we had gone into this season with Burns, Cockrell and Gay as our trio, we might be lucky to be 4-4.

If people are honest, the two weakest performers on defense are which two players? For me that is Burns and Mitchell. They are the two biggest weaknesses that teams exploit and it isn't even close. One we spent a first round pick on and the other we signed to a 5 year $25 million contract. Not really getting a good return on those investments.

Agreed. I laugh when people call Burns a shutdown corner...not even close.

Page 2 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/