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

[equivocation]

"Half the kids picked 'A' and the other half picked 'C'. Therefore the consensus answer is 'B' and you're all wrong."

[Topcat]

Positionless defenders.
Position flexible defenders.
Disguised coverages.
Evolving StaleyD concepts.
Throw away your depth charts
To the recycling bin.

We play modern defensive football.

Yep...true all dat...the only thing I might add is "no more 1st down, 2nd down and/or 3rd down" defensive players...u gotta be ready to defend the pass or run on ANY down...PLUS disguise THOSE coverages...

[Guest]

What are you talking about nobody was going to to take "Insert Name Here" you got special insider information. The entire draft was nowhere near consensus board because teams use their own boards.

By the time the draft is at pick 50 or so depending on draft depth......the difference between the next 150 prospects is marginal and teams should lean into their board and their vision.

All teams have players that are on high end or low end vs supposed standard consensus board.

Exactly how far away from a supposed consensus spot is the reach and where is that standard set?

LAC board JT Woods was a steal as they gave him a 2nd Rd grade and don't give a bolt wtf the consensus status quo board people say JT Woods value is.
Staley can handle the smoke.

Don't you remember Chargers had Herbert #1 on their board forever. Was that consensus.

If your position is that I did not have a bug planted in every NFL war room during the draft, then you are correct. However, if your position is that things cannot be deduced from consensus draft boards that more often right than wrong, then I disagree with your position. The general range in which a player is most likely to be taken as evidenced by consensus big boards is correct more often than not.

A team can tell if its view of a player is an early outlier. And, in my view, it is bad strategy for a GM to take a player that he has as an early outlier in the player's early outlier range. Many pundits collectively have made it clear that they think the GM is wrong by how they ranked the player in question. With consideration given to more than 100 big boards, it takes a multitude of people with a much lower opinion of Woods to get his ranking down to #137 overall.

Regarding a standard, no earlier than the team's closest pick to where the player is consensus big board ranked. Anything else is a defined reach. For example, Palmer was ranked #149. I do not think I can say anything against the pick as a matter of draft strategy if we had taken Palmer at #118 because we did not have another pick before #149. But in the case of the 2021 draft, we actually had two selections before Palmer's consensus ranking (#97 and #118) after we took him, so I do not believe that was a very good strategy even though Palmer is a solid reserve WR.

And to this day I think it is very likely that we could have selected Palmer with the #118 pick and could have taken players like Spencer Brown and Trey Smith in round 3 of the 2021 draft. I raise those players to remain consistent with the players I had suggested at the time. Had that happened and had we taken the #163 ranked McKitty in round 5, it would have produced a domino effect in our team's favor.

We could have taken Breece Hall, for example, at #17 this year and we would have had:

Brown>>>>>Norton
Smith push Zion
Hall>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Spiller

And the above example is just the domino effect difference (a better OL and a better RB group in my example) involving just two picks from the 2021 NFL draft. That is why I hate it so much when we reach. It is not an indictment of Woods, who I think is a decent, albeit far from perfect, player. It is an indictment of our draft strategy regarding certain draft picks.

And yes, as you suggest, it is impossible for us to know with absolute certainty that a particular player would still be on the board later in the draft, but the consensus big board rankings certainly suggest that both of those players would still have been on the board and that we could have been more aggressive in our management of draft capital.

As for Herbert, he was the #1 player on the team's board when they took him and they did not have another draft pick before where Herbert was consensus ranked, so I have no draft strategy gripe with his selection.

[ghost]

"As we go into the draft, we're drafting players, not positions," Telesco told reporters Friday, per a team transcript. "That's kind of the way that we have to look at it. We're not just trying to fill out the team for opening day in 2021; this is how we look at it. This isn't just 'GM speak.' You have to look at this year, and then 2022, 2023, 2024. That's what we're drafting these players for. We don't look at it as far as, 'Hey, what positions do we have to add to?' We're drafting players first, and then we go from there. It's players more than positions.

"I'm pretty confident that we won't be drafting a quarterback real early this year. Other than that, everything would be on the table."

Telesco. In what what he was going to do in the 2022 draft. He told us a year ago and damned if he didn't do exactly that.

https://www.nfl.com/news/chargers-gm...ositions-draft

[ghost]

If your position is that I did not have a bug planted in every NFL war room during the draft, then you are correct. However, if your position is that things cannot be deduced from consensus draft boards that more often right than wrong, then I disagree with your position. The general range in which a player is most likely to be taken as evidenced by consensus big boards is correct more often than not.

A team can tell if its view of a player is an early outlier. And, in my view, it is bad strategy for a GM to take a player that he has as an early outlier in the player's early outlier range. Many pundits collectively have made it clear that they think the GM is wrong by how they ranked the player in question. With consideration given to more than 100 big boards, it takes a multitude of people with a much lower opinion of Woods to get his ranking down to #137 overall.

Regarding a standard, no earlier than the team's closest pick to where the player is consensus big board ranked. Anything else is a defined reach. For example, Palmer was ranked #149. I do not think I can say anything against the pick as a matter of draft strategy if we had taken Palmer at #118 because we did not have another pick before #149. But in the case of the 2021 draft, we actually had two selections before Palmer's consensus ranking (#97 and #118) after we took him, so I do not believe that was a very good strategy even though Palmer is a solid reserve WR.

And to this day I think it is very likely that we could have selected Palmer with the #118 pick and could have taken players like Spencer Brown and Trey Smith in round 3 of the 2021 draft. I raise those players to remain consistent with the players I had suggested at the time. Had that happened and had we taken the #163 ranked McKitty in round 5, it would have produced a domino effect in our team's favor.

We could have taken Breece Hall, for example, at #17 this year and we would have had:

Brown>>>>>Norton
Smith push Zion
Hall>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Spiller

And the above example is just the domino effect difference (a better OL and a better RB group in my example) involving just two picks from the 2021 NFL draft. That is why I hate it so much when we reach. It is not an indictment of Woods, who I think is a decent, albeit far from perfect, player. It is an indictment of our draft strategy regarding certain draft picks.

And yes, as you suggest, it is impossible for us to know with absolute certainty that a particular player would still be on the board later in the draft, but the consensus big board rankings certainly suggest that both of those players would still have been on the board and that we could have been more aggressive in our management of draft capital.

As for Herbert, he was the #1 player on the team's board when they took him and they did not have another draft pick before where Herbert was consensus ranked, so I have no draft strategy gripe with his selection.

It was my understanding that there was only one Time Lord. What kind of skill matrix do you possess to ascertain who is going to be on the Chargers' roster in 2023? Telesco has been crystal clear, these picks are not for 2022 season; they are for the 2023 season.

[Guest]

Most interceptions come off of bad qb decisions and fit into the opportunistic category......db still needs to be in the right position, which often doesn't happen.
I haven't watched Anderson (& if you were being honest, neither have you), and i have barely watched Woods. Quite frankly, I focus more on the trenches because as
an average fan, i can see more of what is happening. With dbs, most often they are off the screen. The descriptions of Anderson from various sights all pretty much match:
decent tackler, but he couldn't cover your grand mother even though he has elite testing numbers in the underwear olympics. He is high in his back pedal and slow to recognize things, but a better tackler than Woods. Despite his straight line speed, he should player closer to the line of scrimmage....which is the type of safety the Chargers do not need.

You go more by athletic profile based on testing, scouts go more by studying game film of respective players and talking to the coaching staffs at their schools.
You keep on talking about testing numbers and the so called 'consensus', they go through hours of film study with a training you, or I, or the majority of boobs
who make up your beloved consensus lack.

Staley made a big deal about how Woods was a ball hawk and led the nation in INTs. I studied Woods' INTs from 2021 because that seemed particularly relevant to what Staley was saying. Except for one very good play where Woods stepped in front of the receiver, stretched out his arms, made a nice catch and took it to the house, the rest of his INTs were somewhat flukish in nature.

These are plays where Woods did not successfully get to the receiver before the ball got there. On one play, for example, the QB made a horrible overthrow that was nowhere near the intended receiver, and it found Woods, who was also nowhere near the intended receiver. There was no traffic, just Woods there for the ball. All that showed is that Woods can move and catch a thrown ball.

On an another INT, there was a different defender that had pretty good coverage on the WR. The ball arrived well before Woods did and that other defender tipped the ball right at Woods, who was several yards away. Woods did a nice job of catching that ball, but it was pure luck that the random deflection went right at him.

So, my point about that is that I do not think you can count on getting a high volume of those kinds of INTs year after year. I see that as being very different from what J.C. Jackson is doing by getting INTs by having good coverage. In one case (Jackson's) the player is making good football plays that generate turnovers. In the other (the case of Woods), the player is getting several INTs because of random fluke luck circumstances.

Regarding Anderson versus Woods, I do not completely disagree with your take in terms of what one player may do better than the other, but I do disagree with your take as to the degree of difference in terms of coverage and ball skills. Woods may be a little bit better than Anderson in those areas, but I would put it as no more than a little better. In watching limited amounts of each player, it appears that neither player tracks the ball very well on deeper passes while they are running. Both players use closing speed and body length to make up for any separation created during passing routes.

Concerning consensus big boards, analyses of people with NFL experience (the same training that you have emphasized) are included as are the big boards of experienced pundits that know what they are discussing. If you think our war room has a monopoly on the correct assessment player talent, then you have not watched Telesco's drafts very carefully. I do not believe that and I think you realize that Telesco has certainly had his fair share of draft pick misses.

My point is that when a whole bunch of people with some degree of experience in assessing players suggest that a GM is wrong, the GM just might factor that into his decision making when he considers selecting a player in that player's early outlier range and consider taking that player a little bit later. I have gone through the exercise several times now of showing the kind of overall roster talent difference even just a couple of reaches can make, which is why, when there are no truly dominant teams and very little separates teams from winning and losing, and every little advantage matters so much, it is so important not to give away overall roster talent by wasting draft capital on players that arguably should be drafted significantly later in the draft.

[Guest]

Telesco. In what what he was going to do in the 2022 draft. He told us a year ago and damned if he didn't do exactly that.

https://www.nfl.com/news/chargers-gm...ositions-draft

And that is exactly what he did not do, which is my point entirely.

[Guest]

"Half the kids picked 'A' and the other half picked 'C'. Therefore the consensus answer is 'B' and you're all wrong."

Even if your unrealistic and lame example somehow did exist in reality, it would still mean that half of the pundits viewed that player as being substantially worse than a GM that has the player ranked in the early outlier range. It still suggests a significant likelihood that the GM could be wrong.

In round three, if the team's top two players are ranked #60 and #65, but the consensus has the #60 player ranked #150 and the #65 player ranked #65, taking the #65 ranked player on the team's board should be an easy choice.

[blueman]

Oooooh, I like that.

Mods, can we change the title of this thread to The Time Lord Thread, much more apt.

[Bolt-O]

Don't tempt me, lol.

[Maniaque 6]

A pundits consensus is superior to a team of scouts payed for finding talent ?

[Guest]

Staley chose Austin Johnson and Sebastian Joseph-Day very early on in free agency... because they do exactly what he wants them to do in his scheme. They make everyone to the side of them (and behind them) better... regardless of the grades awarded by PFF. Jamaal Williams (a pure NT) wouldn't be on Staley's roster... that's not what he does on defense.

There is nothing to suggest that JT Woods would have been available @#123. The safety class talent dropped off significantly after the late 3rd round safety picks of Nick Cross (3/32) and Kerby Joseph (3/33). Starting in round 4, teams began to reach for less-talented safeties... Butler, Belton, Turner-Yell, Anderson...

Instead of reaching for safeties (that would inhibit our ability maximize Derwin's talents) in the 4th round, we were able to choose RB Isaiah Spiller (great value pick).
With this strategy (Woods, Spiller) our defense took a huge step forward and our RB depth/versatility improved significantly. I'll take that strategy everyday; and twice on Sunday.

Let me clarify my comments as to Jamal Williams, which I have discussed in greater detail in other posts. When the adding of SJD and Johnson has been mentioned, the emphasis of the discussion has been that these players will serve to upgrade the run defense. And I certainly hope that that was the point of adding them because their PFF pass rushing numbers combined are less than those of the players that we did not bring back (Linval Joseph and Justin Jones). So, the point of mentioning Williams is not to suggest that Williams is a good or bad fit in Staley's defense, but rather to mention a player that was particularly adept at stopping the run.

What I have said is that some on this forum are discussing SJD and Johnson as if they were the second coming of Jamal Williams in terms of their ability to stop the run. By their PFF run defense grades, however, they are only marginal upgrades over the players that they have replaced in terms of stopping the run. Neither player is an elite run stopper.

I could not disagree more with your assertion that there is no evidence that J.T. Woods would have been there at #123. There is considerable evidence in support of that likelihood.

Woods' consensus ranking was #137. Cross and Joseph were ranked better than Woods and were taken in their consensus value range at the end of the third round. Turner-Yell and Anderson were taken after #123. The Bengals did not reach for Anderson, who shares considerable trait and play similarities to Woods.

Butler is a noted outstanding special teams player, so it seems clear that was why he was selected. Belton is a physical safety and plays a completely different game than Woods plays. So it appears that neither team would have selected Woods had he been there at #113 and #114 when WAS and NYG took them and that is further supported by Woods' #137 overall consensus rank and beyond that by the fact that WAS and NYG selected the players that they chose instead of a player with traits similar to Woods in Anderson even though Anderson was consensus ranked at least 32 slots higher than either Belton or Butler.

Nobody else selected a safety. I think the evidence shows that it is very likely that Woods would have been there at #123.

I agree with your take that Spiller represents exactly the kind of drafting that I want our team to do in terms of getting value. Spiller was consensus ranked #64 overall. In the draft pick grade thread, I gave the Spiller pick an A grade.

The problem is that we reached for Woods, not that we drafted Spiller. And, of course, it is obvious that we would have been much better off with Travis Jones, who likely would have become our best DL player with a year or two. Jones was ranked nearly 100 slots higher than Woods at #44 overall for a reason and that reason is not that Anthony Lynn was an idiot as the "for a reason" was with Herbert not starting week 1 in 2020. Just as you mentioned regarding Spiller, Jones would have been a great value pick for us.

Had we traded up for Jones and taken Spiller, we would have scored a 1st round value and two second round values despite not having a second round pick in this year's draft. That would have been an awesome result for the draft capital we had.

And even if the team had an extreme urge to get Woods, there was absolutely nothing stopping them from trading into the 4th round to get Woods. Amazingly, all but 3 of the first 21 4th round picks were traded at one point or another. Ours was one of the three that were not traded.

As for our RBs, I would re-sign Justin Jackson immediately and make him our #3 RB. As long as he has been without a contract, I think we could re-sign him for the veteran minimum. The issue with Jackson has never been his ability, just his health, so a limited role might serve to protect him. I am unimpressed with our other RB options, but will be looking forward to seeing if one of our UDFA RBs can show something. Right now, I think I would favor Rountree over Kelley, but that represents the difference between "meh" and "worse than meh".

[Guest]

A pundits consensus is superior to a team of scouts payed for finding talent ?

I have never maintained that.