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

[Formula 21]

In the 2020 NFL Draft, Cleveland had every intention of drafting Florida kicker Evan McPherson at No. 153 overall, according to Mary Kay Cabot of cleveland.com. Unfortunately for the Browns, division-rival Cincinnati beat them to the punch, drafting McPherson four spots earlier. McPherson had an impressive rookie-season, converting 28 of 33 field goals and 46 of 48 extra points in the regular season, as well as going a perfect 14 of 14 on field goals and 6 of 6 on extra points in the Bengals’ Super Bowl run.



That’s what happens when you wait too long to get “your guy.”

[Xenos]

Oooooh, I like that.

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

[RockyMtnBoltFan]

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.

I don’t think anyone on this board would disagree philosophically that you want to maximize value in the draft. But the clear and obvious disconnect here is how to define “value”. In my opinion you are coming across as very narrow in suggesting that value should only be determined by a consensus draft board. That is why many people are taking issue with your stance and perspective on this.

in you above example, let’s say they #65/65 was Desmond Ridder and #60/#150 is Woods. Would you take the QB? Does that add more value to the team than Woods over the next couple years?

Point being is that there are MANY additional variables to consider such as current roster construct, future free agents/timing, scheme, medicals, interviews, etc. the Chargers clearly feel like this is a player that can have a bigger impact on the team and the defensive unit…they’ve explained their reasoning for the pick and how it can unlock the potential of the unit as a whole and Derwin in particular. plus you have Nas as a looming free agent that I suspect won’t be re-signed.

These consensus big boards are a general guide, where most are wrong most of the time for all of the reasons I cited above. they can’t possibly take all of these other variable into consideration. I think if you asked any of them they would agree that it’s a general guide, not the Bible.

The good news for you is that if the Chargers are wrong you don’t lose anything, but they all have jobs on the line. To suggest that they aren’t making every pick from the perspective of adding the most impact to the team is ridiculous.

[dmac_bolt]

Jones will probably be better than any of our DTs by next year. Everyone seems to think we made these great improvements on our DL. PFF suggests that the improvements made were actually pretty marginal. Yes, they are better run defenders than the combination of Justin Jones and Linval Joseph, but it is not like either Johnson or SJD is the second coming of Jamal Williams. In fact, they are nowhere close.

The consensus big board I have been citing had Jones at #44 overall. The Athletic's consensus big board had Jones even higher at #40 overall. When a team gets a chance to get a player like that in round 3, it is an easy choice.

It is not a knock on Woods that a clearly better player was on the board. And just like we were not looking at certain safeties, many other teams were not looking at Woods. The odds strongly favored him being still on the board at #123.

You need to change your screen name from chaincrusher to brainbasher. You don’t know you’ve posted this same opinion 50 times? In complete seriousness - what the fuck is wrong with you?

you have zero idea he would be on the board. There in fact was a run on safeties that was NOT recognized in your coveted consensus board. The board was already wrong when they picked. The Chargers were not drafting for 2 or 3 years out in Rd3, they were drafting for 2022 All In. They think JT can play a role this year. We do not need another DT this year nearly as much as we need a 2nd ball hawking back end safety to allow Staley to implement his vision.

You have an opinion. Your opinion has been noted, noted, noted and noted again. And again. And again. Move on already.

[wu-dai clan]

May...June...when the posts keep getting better and better...

[Xenos]

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.

If he becomes a dominant player and a stalwart at RG, they’ll exercise it. Safety was once considered a low priority position also but we optioned Derwin without thinking.

[powderblueboy]

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.

A reach in what sense? Telesco has said that he considered moving down from #17, but once Green was chosen by Houston, there were some guard hungry teams and he didn't want to risk missing out on Zion. In that sense, it wasn't a reach.

In the sense that low priority players seldom have their contracts extended? I get it; but the next five window years were of the upmost consideration.

Low priority positions being safety,rb, interior Oline, inside linebacker, DT, tight end: so you would never draft any of those positions in the first round?

Just drafting edge rusher, corner, OT, qb, wr there is something no team practices.

[TexanBeerlover]

A reach in what sense? Telesco has said that he considered moving down from #17, but once Green was chosen by Houston, there were some guard hungry teams and he didn't want to risk missing out on Zion. In that sense, it wasn't a reach.

This seems very likely. Which was incubated by Houston which passed on choice of top two OT’s for CB coming off career threatening injury. So they put themselves into position of first team to select OG or best offensive linemen available. Chargers should have had both Guards available and hence more flexibility to trade down but only marginally. Green was also my 1A. Bit Zion was also, 1b.

n the sense that low priority players seldom have their contracts extended? I get it; but the next five window years were of the upmost consideration.

Low priority positions being safety,rb, interior Oline, inside linebacker, DT, tight end: so you would never draft any of those positions in the first round?

Just drafting edge rusher, corner, OT, qb, wr there is something no team practices.

Bottom line BPA is not limited to any particular position, each is unique and individual. Best Fit, Best Available, Biggest Need, would be hard to argue with fixing right side of offensive line. Hence Zion was the right selection.

Don’t know or care to count the number of posts that do not include adding a premier edge rusher/run stopper out of that 2nd rd pick. Certainly a top 3 need as well. Any legitimate draft calculus should include Mack in their equation.

Unlocking Derwin James with a mid third rd. pick are you kidding me? Don’t even start to make argument against that whole concept. It’s a puzzle of coaching, analytics, personalities, speed and ball hawking.

[powderblueboy]

This seems very likely. Which was incubated by Houston which passed on choice of top two OT’s for CB coming off career threatening injury. So they put themselves into position of first team to select OG or best offensive linemen available. Chargers should have had both Guards available and hence more flexibility to trade down but only marginally.

I paraphrased Telesco's sentiments directly from an interview with Irish NFL: none of it is my speculation on the matter.
Telesco was expecting Green to be available at #17: he says that he was surprised when Houston made the selection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nGxmztj5xo

note: beware, one of the Irish reporters is a Raider fan.

[wu-dai clan]

Good posts, Tex, pbb.

[TexanBeerlover]

I paraphrased Telesco's sentiments directly from an interview with Irish NFL: none of it is my speculation on the matter.
Telesco was expecting Green to be available at #17: he says that he was surprised when Houston made the selection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nGxmztj5xo

note: beware, one of the Irish reporters is a Raider fan.

Was merely agreeing, thinking along same lines as Telesco I guess, just pointing out, 3rd overall pick impact.

[Critty]

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.

Wow. For someone who is so into what the numbers say in terms of consensus rankings.
I asked you specifically to explain value in trading draft capital for a player who will be on the field less based on the below data which is verifiable as accurate.

Adderley was the starting safety and played 97% of defensive snaps last year. This is a verifiable fact

The year before with Rams when Brandon was the DC, his FS Johnson played 100% of defensive snaps. This is a verifiable fact.

All you have to do is check. But you didn't check so you could have a solid counter argument. You were lazy and just seriously doubted it. Which also shows you have big gaps in your knowledge about football and how often a player is on the field. DT typically are closer to 60% for most teams and Safety are typically closer to 95%. Go check and you will see defensive snap counts on average. And it's completely obvious as to why. Teams don't take safety off the field sub package but DT do get sub out about 1 in 3 snaps on avg. This should not have to be explain to someone who acts like they know it all. Yet it's pretty obvious that your reach per consensus take was a 1 layer Monday morning QB take that didn't pay attention to anything else or weigh anything else into you very simpleton equation for drafting players expect the 1 data point of consensus internet board.
Again, are you able to explain why trading draft capital for a player who will be on the field 30% less as a starter was the value move?

This is now the third time I'm asking you to explain this Value? When the player you wanted to trade for was not going to play as often as the starter. You should also know that Adderley is in last year of contract making the starting safety position more of a need to ensure talent versus the DL where free agents were just added making that position not a need in 2023.

Value was your big argument and the math here says the value for Staley was JT Woods who will play much more downs than Travis Jones would have. Additionally the trade up you wanted to do is using the 4th and would have removed having Spiller as depth and value at the RB position.

Again VALUE was your argument.
And your move lost both snap counts and depth at FS and RB depth Spiller in favor of a DT who if was a starter would play 50-60% of snaps in 2023 So like 500-600 snaps.

Woods as starter would play 900-1000 snaps in 2023. And will for sure have played many more snaps as a back up FS than Jones as back up DL in their rookie years.

And Spiller as RB 2 would get 300 snaps.

So any way you look at it Woods/Spiller double the snap count of Jones.

VALUE? I'd say you threw away 600 snaps of value with your consensus draft board simpleton ways.

:uplol:

IMO, you doubting the snap count for safety put your knowledge and takes about football into serious doubt as it is fundamentally obvious that the starting Safety is on the field for a lot more snaps than the DT/NT would be.