Welcome JT Woods, DB, Baylor (R3, #79)

[Guest]

I think GMs should just fire the scouting department and get a copy of Chaincrusher's consensus big board.

It would make drafting so much easier.

Your take makes no sense. A GM should form his own conclusions, but be cognizant of the consensus rankings as a potential red flag concerning the GM's own evaluation where there is a huge discrepancy.

By way of example, suppose that in the third round the GM's top two ranked players on his big board are ranked #60 and #65 overall--both at positions of need. The consensus ranking has the first player ranked #140 and the second player ranked #65 overall.

Every time and twice on Sunday I would advise the GM to select his #65 ranked player over his #60 ranked player for two reasons. One, there is evidence that the first player may be available to select in the next round as others appear to rank the player lower than the GM does. Two, the presence of a consensus opinion that is very different than that reached by the GM suggests that the GM may be wrong in his analysis. A GM that ignores that possibility is flat out foolish as a number of the pundits have held NFL scouting jobs.

By doing his own analysis and waiting until the consensus range to take a player that the GM believes may be more valuable, the GM has a chance to get good value if he is right and not lose value if the consensus is right. By taking the first player earlier than the consensus range, the GM only gets fair value if he is right and the consensus is wrong.

GMs should not reach versus consensus boards. It is just a bad practice.

[sonorajim]

In the moment, Chaincrusher lives and breathes, I get it, but it is a false trap because doesn’t consider time and doesn’t consider development and sense of loyalty between player/coach.

I felt similar after 2021 draft. Felt both 3rd’s (Palmer/McKitty) and 4th (Rumph) were reaches. Understood positions (WR/TE/Edge) just not the picks. But slowly they worked into the roster taken more reps, especially Palmer and by end of season, McKitty was blowing up opponents with his blocking. Do I wish it happened faster, heck yeah, but they all look promising just not out of the gate promising.

Could be the real value Staley brings to the table, roster building. Players with a chip on their shoulder, overlooked, hard working who show continuous gains to becoming starting players who actually like each other and play well together. So this is why I’m cutting Staley/Telesco slack this year and do expect big things from JT Woods out of the gate, more in fact than Palmer who was a hit in 2021.

I like this statement. It's a reasonable proposition.

[Critty]

The consensus considers hundreds of rankings, not just a few. The consensus had Woods ranked at #137 overall.

Do I really need to explain why a GM does not want to select a player in his early outlier range?

And Zierlein, the author of the nfl.com opinion you cited, projected Woods as a round 4 selection in the very source you cited.

It is idiocy to select a late round 4 ranked player more than a full round early because he might not be there in the middle of round 4. Who cares if Woods is not there when we pick at #123? The world does not cease to exist.

The views of some on this forum are so incredibly inconsistent that it is mind boggling. So, it does not matter at all to some that we ignored an obvious opportunity to add a round 1-2 rated player in Travis Jones by taking aggressive action, but in the unlikely event that Woods, a round 4 ranked player, would not have been available to be taken in round 4, our season would have been lost.

I think Woods is a legitimate NFL player, but he was still a reach as a 3rd round pick and reaches create net talent losses versus other teams that do not reach.

So, where is the list of the 100s of rankings that form the final consensus of #137 for JT Woods. I would like to see it.

What you need to explain is why a GM would select a DL at #79 even if he was higher ranked after they already used free agency to address the DL. And they had much more concerning areas of depth and talent at Safety. And may have ranked that player as higher like Jeremiah did at #67

Since you don't know the Chargers draft board or what specific trait and depth they were targeting, you are simply looking at some standard boards and making blanket statements about it as if there is zero fluidity with draft boards and that teams rankings can start to vary quite a bit the further the draft goes.

Do I really have to explain this obvious nuance in drafting and draft boards?

Do I really need to explain that GM/HC combo typically stick to their plan and board and vision for building a team. And if JT Woods was a top 75 on Stalesco board, then where is the reach for them.

It was a reach for you. It was not a reach for Jeremiah.

Not sure why you continue to act like your opinions is gospel and all else that does not align with your view wrong. And Jeremiah was wrong and PFN was wrong and Staley was wrong and anybody else was wrong. Because supposedly hundred of boards consensus of Woods was at #135. And you don't even Site the source as I did with my example boards.

Also if Travis Jones was consensus higher rates, why was he falling and GM after GM passing on drafting him? How do explain that or is it possible the public boards over rated Jones vs Team/GM boards

Cases dismissed until you provide the source to back it up #135.
Prove it with evidence. Show your work.




​​​​​​

[Critty]

In 2021 consensus draft boards had Sewell-OL ranked in top 5-10 and #1 OL in draft.

Daniel Jeremiah had Sewell at #11 and his #2 OL in draft, instead he Slater as #1 and in the top 10.

2022 consensus boards have JT Woods where? Mid 4th?

Daniel Jeremiah had JT Woods at #67 on his board, early Rd 3.

Chargers may align more with a Jeremiah board, and if they do they were very happy to get Woods at #79.

So.....you know. This board that board consensus board.
Brandon Staley says.....you know what it is....Bolt the F up! We use the Chargers board. JT Woods at #79! I can handle the smoke.

[21&500]

In 2021 consensus draft boards had Sewell-OL ranked in top 5-10 and #1 OL in draft.

Daniel Jeremiah had Sewell at #11 and his #2 OL in draft, instead he Slater as #1 and in the top 10.

2022 consensus boards have JT Woods where? Mid 4th?

Daniel Jeremiah had JT Woods at #67 on his board, early Rd 3.

Chargers may align more with a Jeremiah board, and if they do they were very happy to get Woods at #79.

So.....you know. This board that board consensus board.
Brandon Staley says.....you know what it is....Bolt the F up! We use the Chargers board. JT Woods at #79! I can handle the smoke.

This makes me feel a lot better about Woods.
The day DJ throws his hat into the GM market, he'll be a strong candidate with his experience and knowledge of rosters around the league.

[La Costa Boy]

Pretty sure every year, quality starters come from every round. Yet that shouldn’t be as “consensus” should mean all starters are chosen in the correct order starting with the best starter as the first pick, the second best starter as the second pick, etc. Just shameful how every GM/“consensus” board flat out get this shit wrong every damn year. Boycott ineptitude! Boycott the NFL! Who’s with me (and chain..)?

Boycott beef jerky!!!! Boycott diet beer!!!! Boycott.....I dunno......BMW's since most of the drivers are douche bags!!!!!!

YEAH BOYCOTT EVERYTHING!!!!!!

[blueman]

Boycott beef jerky!!!! Boycott diet beer!!!! Boycott.....I dunno......BMW's since most of the drivers are douche bags!!!!!!

YEAH BOYCOTT EVERYTHING!!!!!!

I can’t believe you just called out Pierce Brosnan like that.

[Bearded14YourPleasure]

I really don’t understand what you guys don’t understand about chain’s position. See we should have traded multiple picks to get Jones because that’s how you make a value pick, by trading multiple resources. We should have also traded multiple resources to get Araiza. Value is when you trade multiple draft picks for 2 players at positions with some of the lowest positional value in the NFL today, right?

Now I know what you’re thinking, what do these NFL teams that spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours researching these players know that the consensus boards don’t? Well considering these teams have the ability to actually meet with the players and their former coaches, have full access to their medicals, actually have to consider positional value, positional availability, and scheme fits…. Absolutely nothing.

[Boltnut]

A reach is defined as selecting a player significantly earlier than the publicly available consensus ranking of the player, so you seem to be arguing with the definition of the term. Woods was by definition a reach as he carried a consensus ranking of #137 overall and he was taken with the #79 draft pick.

As defined by the "experts". Experts get rankings wrong all the time. We'll just have to wait and see if they were right about Woods.

[equivocation]

I really don’t understand what you guys don’t understand about chain’s position. See we should have traded multiple picks to get Jones because that’s how you make a value pick, by trading multiple resources. We should have also traded multiple resources to get Araiza. Value is when you trade multiple draft picks for 2 players at positions with some of the lowest positional value in the NFL today, right?

Now I know what you’re thinking, what do these NFL teams that spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours researching these players know that the consensus boards don’t? Well considering these teams have the ability to actually meet with the players and their former coaches, have full access to their medicals, actually have to consider positional value, positional availability, and scheme fits…. Absolutely nothing.

The issue is the amount of rigidity in belief in the "consensus board", such that it even exists.

First, consensus only functions when people are doing independent and thourough work. The hundreds of big boards are not doing hours of film study on hundreds of prospects and then propoerly putting them in order. A handful do that. Jeremiah, Brugler, PFF, Cosell, maybe bleacher report, draft network, a couple others. Why dilute their actual work with boards put together by people based on what they read elsewhere without ever watching a minute of film?

Second, consensus rankings don't work well with bimodal distributions. For example, last year Josh Palmer was a 3rd round pick on about half of the big boards and a 5th or 6th round pick on about half of big boards. This averaged to a 4th round pick even though almost no one had him there. Does this make sense to use an average? Of course not. If we assume NFL team boards have the same bimodal distribution, he has about a 50% chance of going in the 3rd and a 50% of going in the 4th and very little chance of going later. In a lot of ways player values are determined by who values him the most.

Third, the value delta between picks decreases as you go later into the draft. The value difference between picks 1 and 10 is greater than the difference between 11 and 20 is greater than the difference between 31 and 40 is greater than the difference between 81 and 150. It's very left skew. Long term data validates this for actual draft results (and is significantly more accurate than "consensus boards".) So reaches just don't really matter after a certain point because the value distribution flattens out, even IF these boards were doing thourough scouting of hundreds of prospects, which they are not.

Consensus steals are often not actual steals in hindsight. Consensus reaches are often not actual reaches in hindsight.

The culmination is that this is all just not very accurate OR precise. Nate Hobbs was a consensus UDFA who LVR "reached for" in the 6th. If the draft was redone one year later he'd be a 1st or 2nd round pick. Is he still a reach? Or was the consensus very wrong? Why was it so wrong?

https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com...021/nate-hobbs

https://theathletic.com/2530534/2021...ospects/?amp=1

[AK47]

As defined by the "experts". Experts get rankings wrong all the time. We'll just have to wait and see if they were right about Woods.

My 2 cents....2nd thought its an actual factual statement to say it takes at least 3 years to determine the value of any official mock publication. Here's one of many from CBS in 2018:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/...-all-32-teams/

Tons of fail everywhere for all teams. Check out the what they mocked for the Chargers:

1	17	Da'Ron Payne, DT, Alabama
2	48	Jessie Bates, FS, Wake Forest
3	84	Will Richardson, OT, NC State
4	119	Nyheim Hines, RB, NC State
5	155	Tegray Scales, LB, Indiana
6	191	Matthew Thomas, LB, Florida State
7	251	Aaron Evans, G, UCF	Compensatory

Now here's the actual:

2018 Los Angeles Chargers draft
1	17	Derwin James *	S	Florida State
2	48	Uchenna Nwosu	LB	USC
3	84	Justin Jones	DT	NC State
4	119	Kyzir White	S	West Virginia
5	155	Scott Quessenberry	C	UCLA
6	191	Dylan Cantrell	WR	Texas Tech
7	251	Justin Jackson	RB	Northwestern	Compensatory pick

[equivocation]

Hunter Renfrow was a consensus 5th round pick. Would it have been wrong for any team to take him in the 3rd? We even know, with hindsight, that he lasted to the 5th.