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

[Guest]

Oh ive been here the whole time, been catching your arguments. How do you know HOU wanted to trade their 75 for our 79 and 5th? They traded to get that pick, did you see a For Trade sign hanging in their war room? Someone call you? Twitter?

DEN had the pick (#75) and traded it to HOU. Our offer would have been better than HOU's as our picks were earlier than HOU's. We were in a position to present a better offer than HOU actually presented for that pick.

[Xenos]

My discussion is about whether or not J.T. Woods was a good pick for us. That necessarily includes an explanation for my position. Sorry if you cannot handle that.

I didn’t like the pick either. But I’m willing to talk about the player and his fit in Staley’s scheme IN HIS THREAD than complain about another player that I may have wanted. In my case it was Marcus Jones and Abe Lucas. You don’t see wish we traded up for the latter do you?

[Guest]

I didn’t like the pick either. But I’m willing to talk about the player and his fit in Staley’s scheme IN HIS THREAD than complain about another player that I may have wanted. In my case it was Marcus Jones and Abe Lucas. You don’t see wish we traded up for the latter do you?

It would not bother me in the least if you developed your view on the selection of Woods further to include a discussion about how you thought Lucas or Marcus Jones may have been a better choice for us in the third round.

[Craig440]

DEN had the pick (#75) and traded it to HOU. Our offer would have been better than HOU's as our picks were earlier than HOU's. We were in a position to present a better offer than HOU actually presented for that pick.

It would be interesting to know what went on in the war room. Maybe Denver was not about to trade with us being in the same division. We just don't know if they tried or not.

[Guest]

It would be interesting to know what went on in the war room. Maybe Denver was not about to trade with us being in the same division. We just don't know if they tried or not.

I can't say your theory is impossible, but I can point out that many such trades happened in this year's draft so the thought that teams in the same division cannot trade with each other seems outdated at this point.

[Budsman]

It would not bother me in the least if you developed your view on the selection of Woods further to include a discussion about how you thought Lucas or Marcus Jones may have been a better choice for us in the third round.

There’s a difference in developing and stating your point and belaboring the point. You have clearly gone into the later imho.

[powderblueboy]

I would have been pissed if they traded their first 6th to move up a few spots to get Travis Jones.

[DerwinBosa]

I am not sure if you were on the forum at the time. Suffice it to say that a bunch of us knew BAL would take Jones. That means we knew we could have had him by trading up to #75, which is exactly what we needed to do. That pick actually was traded to HOU, so it was subject to being traded. Our trade offer would have been slightly better than HOU's as our third and our 5th had more value than HOU's did. So, yes, we could have had the #44 ranked player instead of picking the #137 ranked player at #79. We just chose not to take advantage of that possibility.

Who exactly has Travis Jones rated #44 and J.T. Woods #137? Obviously Tom Telesco and his scouts didn't.

[Guest]

Who exactly has Travis Jones rated #44 and J.T. Woods #137? Obviously Tom Telesco and his scouts didn't.

NFL Mock Draft Database Consensus Big Board was the one I was referencing.

The Athletic NFL Draft Consensus Big Board is very similar. It has Travis Jones ranked #40 overall (versus #44) and has J.T. Woods ranked #133 overall (versus #137 overall).

I think you know this, but just to be sure, consensus big boards average and combine many, many big boards, which is what tends to make them more reliable than most individual big boards.

Telesco and his scouts appear to have wandered off of the reservation with this draft per the consensus big boards. I will put it this way. As between the consensus big boards and Telesco, someone is going to be really right and someone is going to be really wrong.

Telesco drafted three players not in the top 360 players on the NFL Mock Draft Database Consensus Big Board. One of the picks, Deane Leonard, was ranked #522. That's like going out and having two full drafts (524 players) before you get to that player.

Then, there was the drafting of Woods some 50+ slots early, and the drafting of Ogbonnia some 25+ slots early. That's 5 out of 8 players selected appearing as significant reaches per the consensus big board. So, like I said, it looks like someone is going to be really right and someone is going to be really wrong.

[DerwinBosa]

NFL Mock Draft Database Consensus Big Board was the one I was referencing.

The Athletic NFL Draft Consensus Big Board is very similar. It has Travis Jones ranked #40 overall (versus #44) and has J.T. Woods ranked #133 overall (versus #137 overall).

I think you know this, but just to be sure, consensus big boards average and combine many, many big boards, which is what tends to make them more reliable than most individual big boards.

Telesco and his scouts appear to have wandered off of the reservation with this draft per the consensus big boards. I will put it this way. As between the consensus big boards and Telesco, someone is going to be really right and someone is going to be really wrong.

Telesco drafted three players not in the top 360 players on the NFL Mock Draft Database Consensus Big Board. One of the picks, Deane Leonard, was ranked #522. That's like going out and having two full drafts (524 players) before you get to that player.

Then, there was the drafting of Woods some 50+ slots early, and the drafting of Ogbonnia some 25+ slots early. That's 5 out of 8 players selected appearing as significant reaches per the consensus big board. So, like I said, it looks like someone is going to be really right and someone is going to be really wrong.

I used to watch a lot more college football up until a few years ago. That's why I brought up how A.J. Smith took Marcus Gilchrist and Jonas Mouton over Justin Houston in the second round years ago. I watched a lot of Houston when he was at Georgia and couldn't understand how he was available for us in the second round. I thought he was going to be an outstanding pass-rusher, which we certainly needed at the time.I also watched a lot of Clemson and thought Gilchrist sucked. I watched a few Michigan games and didn't even know Jonas Mouton existed.

I don't really give much thought to the Consensus Big Board. I'd rather go by what I've seen in the games I've watched these players in.

So, I think this is a fair question: did you actually watch UConn and Baylor games and get a good look at Jones and Woods?

[Guest]

I used to watch a lot more college football up until a few years ago. That's why I brought up how A.J. Smith took Marcus Gilchrist and Jonas Mouton over Justin Houston in the second round years ago. I watched a lot of Houston when he was at Georgia and couldn't understand how he was available for us in the second round. I thought he was going to be an outstanding pass-rusher, which we certainly needed at the time.I also watched a lot of Clemson and thought Gilchrist sucked. I watched a few Michigan games and didn't even know Jonas Mouton existed.

I don't really give much thought to the Consensus Big Board. I'd rather go by what I've seen in the games I've watched these players in.

So, I think this is a fair question: did you actually watch UConn and Baylor games and get a good look at Jones and Woods?

The history you are reciting is exactly the problem a team can run into when its GM thinks he knows better than all of the pundits. I can believe that a GM may know better than one or two pundits. I am less convinced when we are talking about a radically different opinion versus many, many pundits. A number of these pundits actually have NFL experience. I think the notion that our GM knows and everyone else does not is a dangerous notion that leads to such things as a consensus round 5 player (if I recall correctly) in Mouton being taken over Houston. That is a perfect example.

In that scenario, my simple suggestion is this. In cases where there is substantial divergence between the GM's ranking and the consensus ranking, take the consensus round 5 player at or near his consensus ranked value. If he ends being what the GM thought he was, then the GM has produced great value for the pick. If everyone else was right and the player is not as good as believed by the GM, then the pick is either no loss or a minimal loss.

I want to be clear that that general concept, plus the missed opportunity to get Jones are my concerns about what we did/failed to do in round 3 of the draft. And then, the issue was absolutely highlighted when we deliberately drafted (reached for) a player virtually identical in size as Jones (size that Staley specifically emphasized), but less athletic in Ogbonnia (while simultaneously passing on a chance to select a much need punter).

In response to your "fair question", Jones was a top 50 prospect, so I studied him. I saw the UConn versus Clemson game and the Senior Bowl. His presence was very noticeable. I saw his Senior Bowl practice reps where he dominated against soon to be drafted NFL players. One of those players he did well against was some guy named Zion Johnson. I read about Jones and saw highlights as well.

I did not get a chance to study Woods as carefully. By coincidence, I did see a couple of Baylor games, but it was not for the purpose of studying Woods. And, honestly, Woods did not stand out or "catch my eye". I did read about Woods before the draft, but did not study him to the degree I studied Jones. He did not make much an impression on me before the draft.

Even after I saw his highlights, which I think I may have seen before the draft as well some time ago, what I saw was a lot of plays that were bad opponent plays, not great Woods plays. Just look at his highlight video and let me know what you think. He did not strike me as quite the ballhawk that Staley gives him credit for being. Another poster first raised the comparison, but it really was like Cromartie 2007 where opponents just happened to throw the ball right to him (save and except for one totally awesome one handed INT against the Colts by Cromartie). And the problem, of course, is that those kinds of results are generally not sustainable from season to season as Cromartie proved as after he had the 10 INTs in 2007, he never topped 4 in any other season.

Also, for anyone giving Woods a lot of credit for the long scoop and score fumble recovery TD, did you give Tevaughn Campbell that same level of credit when completed his scoop and score against the Bengals? With people having a generally poor view of Campbell on this forum, my recollection is that people downplayed that play as being more of a "Johnny on the spot" lucky play. However, one counts the Campbell play, I think the Woods play has to be counted the same way.

The one good INT I saw from Woods was when he anticipated the out route, undercut it, made a nice catch and ran it in for a pick 6. He deserves full credit for creating that turnover and producing the pick 6.

[powderblueboy]

It would not bother me in the least if you developed your view on the selection of Woods further to include a discussion about how you thought Lucas or Marcus Jones may have been a better choice for us in the third round.

But please include along side your positive descriptions of Jones/Lucas a vague and shadowy prediction that you think Woods will bomb