2021 Draft Discussion - Bolts Pick 13th

[like54ninjas]

I think that #77 spot could yield a starting boundary corner opposite Davis (see sig mock). At #47 we could land the 2nd/3rd best safety in the draft. That’s the way I see it, at least. Of course that plan depends on taking a LT at #13.

Absolutely could playout that way. Makes a ton of sense especially if the prospects you have listed are OTB.

[like54ninjas]

If we go AVT and Little then I’d have AVT battling Oday for RG, sandwich the rookie between 2 vets. Little gets all the reps at LT because that’s all he needs to get ready and long term he is the solution there.

LITTLE — FEILER — LINSLEY — AVT — BULAGA


Should be much better results.

[Bolt4Knob]

If we go AVT and Little then I’d have AVT battling Oday for RG, sandwich the rookie between 2 vets. Little gets all the reps at LT because that’s all he needs to get ready and long term he is the solution there.

I would take AVT and Little for sure in R1 and R2

And to the post above - thats a good point that even in R3 - a CB could be drafted that could be a starter. I have to get in a new mindset that Staley is the coach and he might be able to teach his players better than the previous two staffs!

[Bolt4Knob]

LITTLE — FEILER — LINSLEY — AVT — BULAGA


Should be much better results.

hell - if thats the OL
I would even be okay signing Richard Sherman if he is the truly the best option at CB if need be.
That would be a potentially very good OL for the Chargers!

[like54ninjas]

hell - if thats the OL
I would even be okay signing Richard Sherman if he is the truly the best option at CB if need be.
That would be a potentially very good OL for the Chargers!

There will be starting caliber CB in round 3 and DS on day 3.
I doubt we go Oline in both rounds 1&2 though.

[powderblueboy]

LITTLE — FEILER — LINSLEY — AVT — BULAGA


Should be much better results.

rookies surrounded by vets....:freakout:

[Bolt Dude]

LITTLE — FEILER — LINSLEY — AVT — BULAGA


Should be much better results.

Every trencher's face:
:More Q Please:

[Guest]

I am good with that too. Draft your CB in R3 or R4
sign a veteran - Poole or Nelson as opposed to having the need to say sign Villanueva, Kelly, Wagner as a "bridge" guy at OT if you went CB in R1 and say RAdunz/Little in R2
Would be signing a CB as a "bridge" CB (hell it could be Richard Sherman though prefer a younger CB like Nelson or Poole)

3 OL and 2 DBs in this draft is what I am hoping for

Rapaport just had a tweet that the Giants might be looking to trade back. Not sure how Slater ranks as LT - but if he gets to 11 and the Chargers have him ranked much higher than say Darrisaw - might be worth the 3rd round comp pick to get him. But than again, if Slater makes it to 11 = probably makes it to 13 unless somebody trades up to the Giants to get him.

I do not understand the love for AVT at #13 overall. There is a 90+% chance that he will be playing OG in the NFL. The team moved Lamp to OG because his arms were too short and his arms are longer than AVT's. With rare exception, OGs do not warrant the #13 overall pick. So, even in a vacuum, that does not seem like a good pick.

But in our case, selecting AVT at 1-13 would be even worse. We need starters at LT, CB and FS. There are a significant number of good round 1-2 CB prospects that could start for us. We must upgrade LT, not draft a project and/or sign a fading free agent. While Staley indicates that Adderley is a scheme fit for the team, we cannot assume that he will suddenly demonstrate huge improvement in his game any more than we can in the case of Pipkins.

If we go OG at 1-13, we do not fix any of those problems and create a substantial risk that at least two of those positions will not be filled with quality starting candidates on Day 1. Can you really assume that a third round CB is going to come in start? How well did that work for us with Shareece Wright and Craig Mager? Is the strategy to replace an old an fading Hayward with an even older and fading Sherman?

And trading up for Slater? So instead of a 90+% chance that he will be an OG, there is a 50/50 chance that Slater will play OG and not OT. That is still a ton of additional risk for our first round draft pick that is unnecessary. Trading up to get such a risky player only makes selecting him that much worse of an option.

The players you are discussing are good players, but the team has reduced its options by leaving so many gaping holes in terms of the absence of starting caliber players.

[TexanBeerlover]

The way I see it unfolding is to double dip, rounds one and two, OL. Finish what you started in free agency. Protect the franchise. OT/OG or OG/OT, maybe OT/OT and kick one inside.

Let Staley pick his defense starting in round 3.

#13 Christian Darrisaw, LT
#47 Quinn Meinerz, RG/C/LG

#77 Paulson Adebo, DB/CB
#97 James Hudson, OT/RT

#118 Benjamin St-Juste, DB/CB

#159 Charles Snowden, OLB/Edge

#185 Darrick Forrest, DB/Safety
#198 Khyiris Tonga, DT/NT

#241 Ben Mason, LB/FB/TE

[equivocation]

It's a biased sample to begin with.

How many guys have the bulk to play OL in the NFL and not have a frame that is 6'3" or more? Pretty small number. A lot of the guys who are 6'6" or longer, just don't have the bulk. And how many of guys who are on the short arm/heavy side are athletic enough to be NFL OL, which is a pretty small subset of the overall population to begin with.

Plus, the coaching bias that believes in this nonsense is already putting guys with short arms at DT and interior OL, so not that many of them are even getting the chance.

The other thing they are doing is using the overall grade player had. So some (most) of the players on that list have very, very small sample sizes. It is hard to use a graph like that and include everyone. It would have been nice if they had color coded them by the number of pass blocking snaps or something. The normalizing thing they did was nice from a comparison standpoint, but it assumes that guys with low snap counts are just as good as 10 year starters, and PFF own work shows that OL tend to peak around year 4, so normalizing alone is not enough.

Even if they got the arm length numbers right, which I reject based on a very cursory review of OT combine numbers, they give a guy who plays 10 snaps the same weight as a guy who plays 1000 snaps. The line fit should be weighted by snaps, which is quite easy to do.

[Formula 21]

I do not understand the love for AVT at #13 overall. There is a 90+% chance that he will be playing OG in the NFL. The team moved Lamp to OG because his arms were too short and his arms are longer than AVT's. With rare exception, OGs do not warrant the #13 overall pick. So, even in a vacuum, that does not seem like a good pick.

But in our case, selecting AVT at 1-13 would be even worse. We need starters at LT, CB and FS. There are a significant number of good round 1-2 CB prospects that could start for us. We must upgrade LT, not draft a project and/or sign a fading free agent. While Staley indicates that Adderley is a scheme fit for the team, we cannot assume that he will suddenly demonstrate huge improvement in his game any more than we can in the case of Pipkins.

If we go OG at 1-13, we do not fix any of those problems and create a substantial risk that at least two of those positions will not be filled with quality starting candidates on Day 1. Can you really assume that a third round CB is going to come in start? How well did that work for us with Shareece Wright and Craig Mager? Is the strategy to replace an old an fading Hayward with an even older and fading Sherman?

And trading up for Slater? So instead of a 90+% chance that he will be an OG, there is a 50/50 chance that Slater will play OG and not OT. That is still a ton of additional risk for our first round draft pick that is unnecessary. Trading up to get such a risky player only makes selecting him that much worse of an option.

The players you are discussing are good players, but the team has reduced its options by leaving so many gaping holes in terms of the absence of starting caliber players.

Or they moved Lamp to OG to get him some experience there before moving him to OT. And then they found out he wasn’t even a good OG so a move to OT was out. I had such high hopes for him. It definitely reinforces my small school OL skepticism.

[Guest]

Or they moved Lamp to OG to get him some experience there before moving him to OT. And then they found out he wasn’t even a good OG so a move to OT was out. I had such high hopes for him. It definitely reinforces my small school OL skepticism.

My recollection is that the team specifically indicated that they moved him because of the arm length issue.