Best, worst third-round picks of Kevin Colbert’s Steelers tenure |

Best, worst third-round picks of Kevin Colbert’s Steelers tenure

Chris Adamski

Editor’s note: This NFL draft will be the 20th under the eye of Steelers general manager Kevin Colbert. His two-decade tenure has produced two Super Bowls and a consistent playoff contender. Colbert’s drafts mostly reflect that. Like all NFL personnel men, though, he has had some picks he would like to have back. In conjunction with the Trib’s coverage leading up to the April 25 start of the draft, we will look back at Colbert’s three best — and three worst — picks in each round over the years.

Starting at the bottom and moving up in the draft in a round-by-round examination of Pittsburgh Steelers drafts over the past two decades, now comes territory where these picks are expected to be starters and significant contributors, with anything less viewed as a failure of sorts.

And while there are a couple of those among the 23 third-round picks taken under the stewardship of Kevin Colbert, there also have been some considerable success stories. Here’s a look at three of each:

***Three best third-round picks***

1. Mike Wallace, WR, 2009, 84th overall

Wallace did not have lasting star power, particularly when taking only his Steelers tenure into account. But he was a star rookie. He managed a decade-long NFL career that included a Pro Bowl berth and — in a sign of his stature at one point — received a $60 million contract that, at the time, made him one of the league’s best-paid receivers.

2. Emmanuel Sanders, WR, 2010, 82nd overall

Sanders wasn’t even close to the Steelers’ best draft pick at his position during the 2010 draft (Antonio Brown went in the sixth round), and he is no better than the third-best player in his Steelers draft class (behind Brown and first-rounder Maurkice Pouncey). But Sanders has more than 7,000 career receiving yards and two Pro Bowl berths in nine NFL seasons (and counting).

3. Javon Hargrave, DT, 2016, 89th overall

A product of FCS South Carolina State, the Steelers took something of a risk in taking Hargrave. But he not only has proven to be a perfect nose tackle for the modern NFL, he also is versatile enough that he can play on pure passing downs.

***Three worst third-round picks***

1. Bruce Davis, OLB, 2014, 88th overall

The Steelers were enamored with Davis’ speed and athleticism off the edge, and they hoped he would turn into their next great edge rusher. But Davis was undersized, didn’t transition well from college defensive end to NFL linebacker and was cut at the end of his second training camp. His NFL career consisted of 15 regular-season games.

2. Dri Archer, RB, 2014, 97th overall

Archer arrived with greater-than-usual fanfare as a third-round pick after he ran the 40-yard dash in 4.26 seconds at the combine — the fastest anybody had done it in six years. But it quickly became apparent Archer’s “track speed” didn’t translate as well as “football speed,” and he was gone before the end of his second season.

3. Kraig Urbik, G, 2009, 79th overall

This one comes with an asterisk because Urbik ended up having a long NFL career as a capable starting guard. That should be enough to give any third-round pick a passing grade, but where the Steelers flubbed this pick was he only lasted 16 months with the organization before being cut at the end of his second training camp.

Hey, Steelers Nation, get the latest news about the Pittsburgh Steelers here.

Chris Adamski is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Chris by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Steelers
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.