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

[Guest]

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.

That was never what my statement meant and you know it. When a consensus suggests that a player has a late 4th round value, that suggests that the GM may be wrong if he uses a mid 3rd round pick on the player. That means lots of folks have Woods as worse than #137 overall. Nothing more is necessary.

I continue to disagree with your takes as to Anderson versus Woods.

[Guest]

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.

In other posts, I have made it clear that value is always as to a PON, so your Ridder example is inapplicable, but I agree with the implication of your point that taking a QB in that slot may be unwarranted.

I understand that our team has gone through its analysis. So has the consensus. By the consensus, we reached more than one round, which is why I do not like the approach.

I already do not have great confidence Adderley. I have less in Woods. As I have stated already, I like Woods as sub, but if this position is so critical for our defense, we should have chosen or signed a better player.

Also, you are conflating fit and value. We always want players who fit, but we should always take them in their appropriate value range. The value of consensus big boards is that they make it clear that lots and lots of folks have an opinion that the player in question is way worse than the GM believes. A GM is absolutely free to ignore that view, but I think it is foolish not to at least consider what they are saying. A bunch of the pundits either have an NFL background, years of experience in evaluating players, or both. The lack of respect they are being given versus Telesco by some on this forum is mind boggling.

No knowledgeable Charger fan could possibly have the opinion that Telesco is "the Bible" (to borrow from you) when it comes to talent evaluation and drafting players. Telesco's draft history in the third round reads as a "WTF festival" to the point that I think a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a draft board with consensus appropriate players on it could do better.

I have never suggested that the team is not making every pick from the perspective of adding the most impact to the team. I am sure that is how they set up their draft board and I am sure that when they make a pick, they think they are right. However, I think there is indicia that they may not actually be right in this instance.

[Guest]

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.

There was not a "run on safeties" as you have indicated. That is ridiculous. After we reached, two late third round safeties were taken in the exact range when the consensus board suggested they should be taken. The exact number of safeties were taken at #123 as the consensus big board indicated would be taken at that point.

Two safeties with traits entirely dissimilar to those of Woods were taken in the 4th round before #123, tending to indicate that these teams were not looking for Woods' traits. One was a special teams ace and one was a physical safety--both nothing like Woods at all. Both teams passed over a higher consensus ranked safety with traits similar to Woods in Anderson even though Anderson was ranked 32+ spots higher. Nobody else took a safety. I would say that is a pretty darn good indication that Woods would have been there at #123.

There is a reason why the BPA approach is the right approach and teams screw themselves when they do not adhere to it as we did not with the Woods selection.

If you wish to keep discussing the points, I will keep discussing them.

[TexanBeerlover]

To point out the beyond incredibly obvious that you have missed, I have discussed Telesco/Staley versus consensus big boards, not versus me.

Consensus is your own imagination.

[Guest]

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.

Draft value is quality of player versus where the player was taken. Player value refers to how good the player is overall. That is clear.

Woods is not starting over Adderley. In base, which we played approximately 30% of the time last year, the safeties are Adderley and James. Woods will not be on the field for those snaps. That is what I have said. So you are down to 70% before considering the small percentage of short yardage snaps, which will lower Woods' playing percentage even further.

And that does even consider plays where we use 5 DBs that do not include Woods such as when we use James, Adderley, Samuel, Vato and Jackson.

Sure, we could change our percentages, but that is what the evidence has been thus far under Staley.

I agree that percentage of snaps played can be a factor in assessing player value, but not the biggest factor in determining which player is the better player, which is a not a remotely close call in the eyes of the vast majority of pundits when discussing Jones versus Woods. You have specifically cited Jeremiah and Zierlein and both have Travis Jones as the better player. Jeremiah had Jones ranked #37 overall on his top 150, fully 30 slots higher than his early outlier ranking of Woods.

You are canoeing upstream without a paddle in taking the position that Jones is not a better player than Woods.

And, by the way, if Aaron Donald had been in this year's draft, I would have taken him over Woods or even Adderley even though their snap counts could be higher than Donald's. Jones may not be Aaron Donald, but he is a good player and a much better player than Woods.

[Guest]

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.”

Yep, we should have drafted Woods at #17 overall, no doubt. Otherwise, we would have risked not getting our guy.

Or could it be that CLE, who also had the #132 pick, valued another player more than they valued McPherson? And could it possibly be a better strategy to take players in their value appropriate range?

[Guest]

Consensus is your own imagination.

There is a thing called a consensus big board. It really does exist. And it really does highlight selections that are against the great weight of published opinion.

I may not have a reason to prefer the opinion of one person to Telesco. I very well may have a reason to prefer the opinion of many pundits versus Telesco. The large majority may be wrong and Telesco may be right, but most of the time the opposite will be true where their opinions diverge to a large degree.

Recognized reaches are usually not looked upon favorably. To eliminate obvious bias, just consider the Raiders and Leatherwood at #17 overall. The pick was nearly universally criticized. Why? Because the vast majority of public opinion out there was that Leatherwood was not worth #17 overall. Most non-public evaluators agreed with that conclusion as well, including some on this forum.

I am applying the same analysis to the Woods pick.

[TexanBeerlover]

There is a thing called a consensus big board. It really does exist. And it really does highlight selections that are against the great weight of published opinion.

I may not have a reason to prefer the opinion of one person to Telesco. I very well may have a reason to prefer the opinion of many pundits versus Telesco. The large majority may be wrong and Telesco may be right, but most of the time the opposite will be true where their opinions diverge to a large degree.

Recognized reaches are usually not looked upon favorably. To eliminate obvious bias, just consider the Raiders and Leatherwood at #17 overall. The pick was nearly universally criticized. Why? Because the vast majority of public opinion out there was that Leatherwood was not worth #17 overall. Most non-public evaluators agreed with that conclusion as well, including some on this forum.

I am applying the same analysis to the Woods pick.

Got it. But the Chargers Big Board is not the same thing as the consensus board. They only care as much about the teams who select around their draft slot as they relate to targeted players on their own “Charger Board”. Your playing it as if it’s PFF Simulator, then instead of using PFF board using fan consensus big board. We all know how ridiculously off those things are especially if you bump up randomness. So seriously, while there maybe a consensus big board on the internet doesn’t make it reality in NFL war rooms, that type of info doesn’t just get leaked out of all 32 with one exception, the Cowgirls.

[equivocation]

Got it. But the Chargers Big Board is not the same thing as the consensus board. They only care as much about the teams who select around their draft slot as they relate to targeted players on their own “Charger Board”. Your playing it as if it’s PFF Simulator, then instead of using PFF board using fan consensus big board. We all know how ridiculously off those things are especially if you bump up randomness. So seriously, while there maybe a consensus big board on the internet doesn’t make it reality in NFL war rooms, that type of info doesn’t just get leaked out of all 32 with one exception, the Cowgirls.

And they didn't have Penning graded in the 1st or 2nd round. So much for consensus.

[Critty]

Draft value is quality of player versus where the player was taken. Player value refers to how good the player is overall. That is clear.

Woods is not starting over Adderley. In base, which we played approximately 30% of the time last year, the safeties are Adderley and James. Woods will not be on the field for those snaps. That is what I have said. So you are down to 70% before considering the small percentage of short yardage snaps, which will lower Woods' playing percentage even further.

And that does even consider plays where we use 5 DBs that do not include Woods such as when we use James, Adderley, Samuel, Vato and Jackson.

Sure, we could change our percentages, but that is what the evidence has been thus far under Staley.

I agree that percentage of snaps played can be a factor in assessing player value, but not the biggest factor in determining which player is the better player, which is a not a remotely close call in the eyes of the vast majority of pundits when discussing Jones versus Woods. You have specifically cited Jeremiah and Zierlein and both have Travis Jones as the better player. Jeremiah had Jones ranked #37 overall on his top 150, fully 30 slots higher than his early outlier ranking of Woods.

You are canoeing upstream without a paddle in taking the position that Jones is not a better player than Woods.

And, by the way, if Aaron Donald had been in this year's draft, I would have taken him over Woods or even Adderley even though their snap counts could be higher than Donald's. Jones may not be Aaron Donald, but he is a good player and a much better player than Woods.

You mentioning Jones in same sentence as Donald is absurd.
And saying you would take a previous #13 overall who is best defensive player in game and who played a god like amount of snaps of 90% last year. B.Willams who played the spot for Ravens that Jones will play at NT. He is the comparison...are you taking him over Adderley and Woods for the Chargers defensive scheme. And trading away a 4th to do it. Come on dude stay on track here......Aaron Donald is your way out of this failing argument .....Wow..... Ridiculous.

You are over the waterfall in your canoe when you are pulling in the best defensive player in game a future 1st ballot ball of famer to attempt an counter argument. Good luck with that.

I don't know who the better player will be yet. They were both 3rd rd picks. They both have to prove what the can do on the next level.

Woods maybe very we'll be the starter in 2023 as Adderley is in his final year of contract. And I specifically mentioned both players and snaps count as rookies and then in 2023 as starters. And saying your getting many more snaps out of Woods/Spiller vs Jones. Also mentioned that teams do indeed use their own boards and will indeed be on the high or low side vs consensus and use their own board. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder here. And for Stalesco they got a very valuable player and your take about consensus amounts to a hill of beans and nothing more in terms of LAC following their draft board and their plan. They don't draft per consensus board, they draft per their own board. Why in the heck would they do all this preparation to create their board and then use consensus to make decisions on who to draft. Only a fool would suggest such a thing.

Aaron Donald.
:LOL:

[RockyMtnBoltFan]

In other posts, I have made it clear that value is always as to a PON, so your Ridder example is inapplicable, but I agree with the implication of your point that taking a QB in that slot may be unwarranted.

I understand that our team has gone through its analysis. So has the consensus. By the consensus, we reached more than one round, which is why I do not like the approach.

I already do not have great confidence Adderley. I have less in Woods. As I have stated already, I like Woods as sub, but if this position is so critical for our defense, we should have chosen or signed a better player.

Also, you are conflating fit and value. We always want players who fit, but we should always take them in their appropriate value range. The value of consensus big boards is that they make it clear that lots and lots of folks have an opinion that the player in question is way worse than the GM believes. A GM is absolutely free to ignore that view, but I think it is foolish not to at least consider what they are saying. A bunch of the pundits either have an NFL background, years of experience in evaluating players, or both. The lack of respect they are being given versus Telesco by some on this forum is mind boggling.

No knowledgeable Charger fan could possibly have the opinion that Telesco is "the Bible" (to borrow from you) when it comes to talent evaluation and drafting players. Telesco's draft history in the third round reads as a "WTF festival" to the point that I think a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a draft board with consensus appropriate players on it could do better.

I have never suggested that the team is not making every pick from the perspective of adding the most impact to the team. I am sure that is how they set up their draft board and I am sure that when they make a pick, they think they are right. However, I think there is indicia that they may not actually be right in this instance.

the Ridder example was just to make the simple point that nobody in their right mind would be tightly bound to the consensus big board. There are
many other variables to consider.

Also, I don’t think Telesco’s view is the Bible either and he deserves plenty of criticism for his 3rd round picks over the years. However, another variable that is important to consider is that he appears to genuinely collaborate with his head coaches and give them a significant voice in the process and selections. For example, it seems like the Kenneth Murray trade up had a lot to do with Anthony Lynn. The past 2 drafts (and free agency) have Brandon Staley’s fingerprints all over them. It’s important to get the players that your coaches want and believe in…and I guarantee their war room didn’t just sit there and say JT is our guy, turn in the pick. It’s always a fluid situation. There are multiple players in the cluster for consideration, they debate the possible picks and then make the call. I also think it’s fair to point out that the majority of 3rd round picks NEVER become even serviceable starters in the NFL and JT might not either, but I certainly understand their thinking and explanations around why he was the selection. For what it’s worth the Palmer pick looks pretty damn good a year removed and McKitty shows some promise…we’ll see how he develops.

I choose to be an optimist on this one and put a little faith in Staley. I really like most of what he has done since getting the job.

[Critty]

There is a thing called a consensus big board. It really does exist. And it really does highlight selections that are against the great weight of published opinion.

I may not have a reason to prefer the opinion of one person to Telesco. I very well may have a reason to prefer the opinion of many pundits versus Telesco. The large majority may be wrong and Telesco may be right, but most of the time the opposite will be true where their opinions diverge to a large degree.

Recognized reaches are usually not looked upon favorably. To eliminate obvious bias, just consider the Raiders and Leatherwood at #17 overall. The pick was nearly universally criticized. Why? Because the vast majority of public opinion out there was that Leatherwood was not worth #17 overall. Most non-public evaluators agreed with that conclusion as well, including some on this forum.

I am applying the same analysis to the Woods pick.

Jones was not on the board. So Chargers could not take him.

You are claiming you Woods trade up because big board consensus had Jones as the higher ranked player.

And you are claiming they didn't get good value with the Woods selection.

Let say LAC tried and You had no takers on your move up for Travis "Aaron Donald" Jones.......so who do you pick at #79?