2022 Official Bolts Draft Superthread

[equivocation]

There is nothing wrong with adding a big, powerful NT. That is NOT the argument being made. It never has been.

The argument is that you don't want to reach for the guy at #17 to get a situational run stuffer, when the guys who are going to have the athletic ability to be consistent playmakers (on O or D) are available. The secondary argument is that the college FB crowd is overvaluing Davis.

The other argument is - do you draft need or value? Yes, in terms of our worst-performing area, run D wins out, although there are several other areas close behind. We have DB to the point that secondary is not a need. We have WR to the point that that position is not a need. I would argue that OL is like that too. The point being, I am not against adding a player in any of those areas despite not being a true need.

Adding an impact/quality draft pick player in those spots would still make the team better. Finding the right guy and getting synergy, means that there could be a major boost to the team.

The flip side is going for need, it improves the team faster than any other way. turning one or more of the problem areas could show the biggest improvement in terms of outcomes. The big downside is that it is kinda living in the past. The coaches will spend a lot of the offseason addressing ways to offset the problems from last year.

If the problem was something other than personnel, then that is something that can be fixed without a tremendous amount of draft or FA capital. For example, our D, with many of the same players in 2020, was ranked 10th overall. We were middle of the pack in terms of run D, but even that is misleading, since there was very little difference in run D between the best and worst run defenses, unless you were the top couple or bottom couple of teams. That begs the question, how much of it is just what Staley was doing something "different"?

2020 LAC Defense DVOA was #20 at 4.4%
2021 LAC Defense DVOA was #26 at 4.8% (0.4% worse).

2020 was a cupcake schedule. 27th hardest without counting KC sitting starters in week 17.

Harris SUCKED in 2021. And some players (Perryman, Heyward, Philon, King) clearly should have been retained.

[equivocation]

It is worth remembering the most impressive run D in the world is not going to stop a team from trying to run at us as much as getting a 21 point lead. Offenses will continue to do what they want until they feel like they have to give up because the game is getting out of hand.

Adding run defense ability on D is a necessity, but improving the OL is a more effective way to make any O we play one-dimensional.

I do agree that finishing the OL is probably the most impactful change we can make. It synergizes with our current strengths very well. OL is as strong as the weakest link. 1 more player there makes everyone better.

The offense...wasn't exactly inconsistent, but their struggles always seemed to come at the worst time for the D. A consistent top 5 OL will smooth that out and not let teams establish leads.

[Steve]

I do agree that finishing the OL is probably the most impactful change we can make. It synergizes with our current strengths very well. OL is as strong as the weakest link. 1 more player there makes everyone better.

The offense...wasn't exactly inconsistent, but their struggles always seemed to come at the worst time for the D. A consistent top 5 OL will smooth that out and not let teams establish leads.

IMHO they were inconsistent. Moreso over the course of a game, than in the game to game sense, although in the games were we got blown out.

[Steve]

2020 LAC Defense DVOA was #20 at 4.4%
2021 LAC Defense DVOA was #26 at 4.8% (0.4% worse).

2020 was a cupcake schedule. 27th hardest without counting KC sitting starters in week 17.

Harris SUCKED in 2021. And some players (Perryman, Heyward, Philon, King) clearly should have been retained.

Harris was a lot better in 2021 than in 2020.

DVOA is not a real stat. Before you tell me it is, show me the logic which is used to calculate it. If you can't replicate it and look at the mechanics, it is just a made-up number, like the ESPN QB thing.

DVOA has an inherent bias against bend-but-don't-break defenses. Efficiency analysis only values minimizing the number of yards. It tries to put in factors for critical situations, but even that is not much of a help.

It has no valuation for how the yards are given up vs the game situation, specifically the time element. The Offensive version penalizes any team trying to run the ball to kill the clock, even though that might be the best strategy to get out of a game wiht a win (big lead). Similarly, DVOA penalizes teams who give up short gains in preference for taking away long, explosive plays, especially when one considers that no defense can defend the whole field.

[equivocation]

Harris was a lot better in 2021 than in 2020.

DVOA is not a real stat. Before you tell me it is, show me the logic which is used to calculate it. If you can't replicated it and look at the mechanics, it is just a made up number, like the ESPN QB thing.

How do you propose adjusting for SoS and situational impact? The NFL plays an unbalanced schedule, scheduling impact matters a lot in determining descriptive stats. Yards in a tight game mean more than in a blowout.

If you have a preferred stat that isn't just counting yards (win rate, adjusted epa/play, whatever) we can use that instead.

Agree to disagree on Harris. That was some of the worst football I've seen out of one player, especially down the stretch.

[jamrock]

Would be great to have an explosive weapon on offense

[Steve]

How do you propose adjusting for SoS and situational impact? The NFL plays an unbalanced schedule, scheduling impact matters a lot in determining descriptive stats. Yards in a tight game mean more than in a blowout.

If you have a preferred stat that isn't just counting yards (win rate, adjusted epa/play, whatever) we can use that instead.

Agree to disagree on Harris. That was some of the worst football I've seen out of one player, especially down the stretch.

I would stop using statistics like a drunk using a lamppost, for support rather than illumination. (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/424...unk-man-uses-a)

I don't necessarily feel the need to use stats in an argument. Again, I do a lot of statistics for a living, so the fact that they are all flawed to some degree is not something I have a problem with. And over the course of my professional career, I think trying to "adjust" for biases often leads to more problems than it fixes.

Anyone who watched our games knows that our D sucks, why do I need a stat to prove it?

[equivocation]

I would stop using statistics like a drunk using a lamppost, for support rather than illumination. (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/424...unk-man-uses-a)

I don't necessarily feel the need to use stats in an argument. Again, I do a lot of statistics for a living, so the fact that they are all flawed to some degree is not something I have a problem with. And over the course of my professional career, I think trying to "adjust" for biases often leads to more problems than it fixes.

Anyone who watched our games knows that our D sucks, why do I need a stat to prove it?

You brought the stats in in post #1057. You said we had the "10th overall" defense in 2020. This is obviously wrong to anyone who watched that squad, especially in critical situations. And double especially when accounting for SoS.

So take your own advice and support your own assertion.

I'm not saying 2021 was better. It was worse. 2020 was nothing special either.

[blueman]

Would be great to have an explosive weapon on offense

This.

There is no D player in this draft who will step in and be key to beating the Chiefs. Pipe meet dream. There are a lot of players who, given time, will upgrade numerous spots, sure. Thing is, we need to beat KC now, while we still have O guys in their prime (or in KA’s case, still pretty damn good). The D needs all the FA studs we can afford - at the expense of some of our own FAs. Priority, we should be looking at the best IDL available and make him an offer he can’t refuse. Then go from there. We lose the LOS battle so damn much, a 2 down run stuffer would be H-U-G-E. But not a project, we need plug and play. Fatusaki would be a good signing for that IMO, expensive but worth it. That one signing would do so much, the draft could truly be BPA and that O weapon could be there for us at 17. Or an EDGE. But give me an IDL coming off his rookie deal better than Tillery, can’t be that hard, last in run D, right? It starts in the trenches, Tillery was not the guy, sign somebody who is.

[powderblueboy]

Watching Ingram & Clark in the playoffs, Pip's performance against them looking better and better.

[powderblueboy]

Would be great to have an explosive weapon on offense

Ekeler?

[gzubeck]

I would stop using statistics like a drunk using a lamppost, for support rather than illumination. (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/424...unk-man-uses-a)

I don't necessarily feel the need to use stats in an argument. Again, I do a lot of statistics for a living, so the fact that they are all flawed to some degree is not something I have a problem with. And over the course of my professional career, I think trying to "adjust" for biases often leads to more problems than it fixes.

Anyone who watched our games knows that our D sucks, why do I need a stat to prove it?

Pretty much the last play of our last game summed up our defensive effort our whole season. When it counted the most our D failed to stop. We would have been eliminated in the first round with the way our D played this season. Better for us to draft higher and fix the D first. A lot of teams got abused in the first round and most of the teams with a defense moved to the final 8 teams.

:coffee: