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

[Critty]

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.

Any comment on the Jones as a starter would play 50-60% defensive snaps.

JT Woods as a starter would play 90-100% of defensive snaps. And was a better fit for the defense.

Trade draft capital to move up for the less snap player was the correct move for you because it was on the Internet consensus board you like is what your telling me.

Value?

:umm:

[Guest]

Making arguments based on consensus "experts" have little effect on me. If these guys were truly talented, they'd be working for NFL teams. They are often wrong and their lens is not focussed specifically on individual teams' schemes or needs. If Staley's eval said "2nd rounder", I have a hard time discounting his opinion over some click-bait writer.

You talk about timed speed, weight, arm length etc. without considering any of the things that Staley values (instincts, ability to make reads, understand assignments, coverage skills etc.). Woods excels in every one of those categories over Tycen Anderson. And as you say, it's not even close.

You say that you understand what the team is try to do... yet every point you make suggests the polar opposite.
Woods was selected because he was better in back-end coverage (Staley's opinion) than any prospect still available @#79.
Staley wants to bring Derwin into play-makers' role... and make this defense top-10 rather than bottom-10. A back-end defender helps him do that. A rotational IDL does not.

I am not sure how many times I have to explain this, but the fact that a player may fit a team's scheme literally has nothing to do with when the player should be drafted in terms of the player's overall rank.

Would it have been perfectly fine to draft Woods in the first round? If you say yes, please explain. If you say no, is it because Woods does not have the value of a first round pick?

Believing that you are attempting to be reasonable in your takes, let me guess that you said no and did so because Woods does not have the value of a first round pick even though he is a fit with our defense.

What I am suggesting is that that exact same analysis holds true with respect to our use of our third round pick on Woods only to a lesser degree. The consensus view of his value is that he is not worth a third round pick--regardless of which teams' systems he fits.

I do not agree with your takes about Woods and Anderson. And Anderson has nothing to do with us taking Woods in round 4, which corresponds to his value.

I have always understood what we are trying to do and not do with Derwin James and I agree with Staley's theoretical approach. I also have no issue with Woods as being a decent player. I think we have overvalued him, though, and reached unnecessarily to get him. I do not see some kind of Pro Bowl safety in Woods, but I do believe that he is an upgrade over Gilman, just an upgrade we selected a round too early when we had the ability to select a better player by trading up in Travis Jones.

In this thread, ghost just quoted Telesco about taking players and not positions. He very clearly did not do that in the third round of this year's draft as he failed to trade up when he could have, and he reached when he did not need to reach.

[equivocation]

Travis Jones was my favorite player in the draft. Not who I think was the best, just my favorite, along with Calvin Austin and Zach Tom.

However, I recognize that you only get 3% of the players in any given draft so he wasn't likely to end up here. We should be focusing on the guys who are here, not the ones who aren't.

[Guest]

Any comment on the Jones as a starter would play 50-60% defensive snaps.

JT Woods as a starter would play 90-100% of defensive snaps. And was a better fit for the defense.

Trade draft capital to move up for the less snap player was the correct move for you because it was on the Internet consensus board you like is what your telling me.

Value?

:umm:

Woods projects as a decent, but not great player. As you yourself cited at post #353, Zierlein projects Woods as a good backup with the potential to develop into a starter.

And since you have cited Zierlein, let's carry that forward into his corresponding take regarding Jones in which he states that Jones will eventually be a plus starter.

Which of the two is the better player? Jones. In drafts, the superior strategy is to take the better player as both positions were PONs, which is proven by our taking Ogbonnia.

Further, on what do you base your statement that Woods is a better fit for us than Jones? Jones and Ogbonnia are the same size, but Jones is more athletic than and better than Ogbonnia at everything, which is why Jones was consensus ranked #44 overall overall and Ogbonnia was ranked #187 overall. Within a year or so, Jones will likely be better than both Joseph-Day and Johnson. Ogbonnia is just 6th round consensus ranked rotational depth that we took in round 5. Some pundits had Jones as a back end of the first round player and some on this forum considered him as a possibility worthy of discussion at #17 overall.

Frankly, I like the idea of Woods as a sub. He would be a good sub, but maybe not so good as a starter, which is why he was consensus ranked as a late 4th round player at #137 overall. My hope is that to the degree that Staley urgently wants to free up James, that we will use a premium draft pick to get a better player than either Woods or Adderley.

Finally, I think that under Staley we play in our base defense about 30% of the time and in short yardage a little bit too. I seriously doubt that Woods will be on the field 90-100% of the time.

[Guest]

Travis Jones was my favorite player in the draft. Not who I think was the best, just my favorite, along with Calvin Austin and Zach Tom.

However, I recognize that you only get 3% of the players in any given draft so he wasn't likely to end up here. We should be focusing on the guys who are here, not the ones who aren't.

I am discussing my take on the selection of Woods at #79 overall, which includes a discussion of both Woods' value and what our other potential options were.

The most concise way I can state it is that I would have liked Woods better at #123 overall, where I think we could have taken him, and I do not think he is going to be quite the world beater that some pundits and some on this forum think he might be. But I would be happy to be wrong about that.

[Formula 21]

Interceptions of overthrows could be luck or the result of film study noting a QB has the tendency to overthrow a particular route or routes. Both are good qualities. And yes there are both lucky and unlucky players.

[Formula 21]

I am discussing my take on the selection of Woods at #79 overall, which includes a discussion of both Woods' value and what our other potential options were.

The most concise way I can state it is that I would have liked Woods better at #123 overall, where I think we could have taken him, and I do not think he is going to be quite the world beater that some pundits and some on this forum think he might be. But I would be happy to be wrong about that.

The logic breakdown comes when you say you think we could take him at 123 vs you know we could take him at 123. The draft is full of disappointed teams who thought a high priority player would make it to their next pick.

I would not have taken Woods in the 3rd, however the Bolts felt they had to have him there. And its their money in the game not ours.

[Formula 21]

PS. Zion was a reach at 17 too. And based upon The Athletic’s study on the 5th year option, it is highly unlikely the Bolts will use it on him. Players at low priority positions rarely have their 5th year options exercised.

[Boltnut]

I am not sure how many times I have to explain this, but the fact that a player may fit a team's scheme literally has nothing to do with when the player should be drafted in terms of the player's overall rank.

Would it have been perfectly fine to draft Woods in the first round? If you say yes, please explain. If you say no, is it because Woods does not have the value of a first round pick?

Believing that you are attempting to be reasonable in your takes, let me guess that you said no and did so because Woods does not have the value of a first round pick even though he is a fit with our defense.

What I am suggesting is that that exact same analysis holds true with respect to our use of our third round pick on Woods only to a lesser degree. The consensus view of his value is that he is not worth a third round pick--regardless of which teams' systems he fits.

I do not agree with your takes about Woods and Anderson. And Anderson has nothing to do with us taking Woods in round 4, which corresponds to his value.

I have always understood what we are trying to do and not do with Derwin James and I agree with Staley's theoretical approach. I also have no issue with Woods as being a decent player. I think we have overvalued him, though, and reached unnecessarily to get him. I do not see some kind of Pro Bowl safety in Woods, but I do believe that he is an upgrade over Gilman, just an upgrade we selected a round too early when we had the ability to select a better player by trading up in Travis Jones.

In this thread, ghost just quoted Telesco about taking players and not positions. He very clearly did not do that in the third round of this year's draft as he failed to trade up when he could have, and he reached when he did not need to reach.

Well, I'm not sure what more I can tell you that hasn't already been said.
In the end, the Chargers had a 2nd round grade on JT. That made him a steal (rather than a reach) in their minds.
Personally, I liked Nick Cross (and thought he was a steal @#79). But Staley/TT liked JT better. I'm 100% sure that Staley knows what he needs on defense better than I do. And I'm 99.9% sure that Staley knows better than sports writers who he needs at safety next year.

I could list 40-50 players that went significantly higher and lower than the almighty consensus predicted they would. But there is no point. Your mind has been made up and you're not budging. We'll re-visit this again in late December.

[TexanBeerlover]

Telesco/Staley > Chaincrusher

[powderblueboy]

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.

You need to name one person from this group suggesting that Telesco was wrong in selecting Woods who has experience playing or coaching a defensive back field position.
The nameless, faceless mob of PFF Zacks & CBS.com Kevins convinces nobody.

I think this would go a long ways towards buttressing your argument. Maybe Weddle didn't like the pick, or Rodney Harrison,......?

As for Woods vs.Anderson, they play the position differently: Anderson's style does not fit what the Chargers were looking for.

[blueman]

The thread that won’t die…kinda fun, I dunno.