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

[Xenos]

In order to understand JT's value to the Chargers, you have to understand what the Chargers are trying to do on defense.

First and foremost, they are trying to move Derwin into the Star and Money position. In order to do that, they needed another split safety who is good in coverage... specifically on the back end. I suspect we'll see both Derwin and JT on the field at the same time around 80% of the time.

A number of the top safeties were players that don't fit that specific skillset. Daxton Hill, Lewis Cine, Jaquan Brisker, Kerby Joseph, and Tycen Anderson will be used by their teams (as they were in college) in roles that bring them closer to the L.O.S. (ala Derwin) and fill the Star and Money positions. In effect, they were players we weren't even targeting.

The backend defenders were: Bryan Cook, Nick Cross, and JT Woods. Cook was gone... and Staley chose Woods over Cross.
We won't have to tolerate Alohi Gilman on the backend anymore... rejoice!

What kind of alignment would that be? 4-1-6?

[Boltnut]

What kind of alignment would that be? 4-1-6?

Staley said that he wanted to use Derwin in the slot (Star) and in the middle of the field (Money)

Big slot (Star) will be a 4-2-5. Derwin will be in the slot. Reeder and K9 will be the LB's. We'll have 5 DB's... but be very strong against the run, still.
Dime (Money) will be a 4-1-6. Derwin will be the cover-LB (Kyzir's old roll) with K9 the Mike. 6 DB's... still pretty good vs the run. Vato comes in as the 6th DB.

[Xenos]

Staley said that he wanted to use Derwin in the slot (Star) and in the middle of the field (Money)

Big slot (Star) will be a 4-2-5. Derwin will be in the slot. Reeder and K9 will be the LB's. We'll have 5 DB's... but be very strong against the run, still.
Dime (Money) will be a 4-1-6. Derwin will be the cover-LB (Kyzir's old roll) with K9 the Mike. 6 DB's... still pretty good vs the run. Vato comes in as the 6th DB.

[Boltnut]

I would imagine that against teams like the Chiefs, we'll see many 3 WR sets + Kelce @TE (tight or in the slot).
In those instances, we'd go dime defense.
Derwin on Kelce, the 3 CB's (JC, ASJ, Vato) man on the 3 WR's, with Adderly and Woods over the top (guarding halves).

With offenses that go with a 21 personnel (2 TE's 1 RB)... I bet we go big nickel.
Derwin on the receiving TE, K9 on the blocking TE, Reeder in the middle.

[Guest]

In regards to trading up for DT Travis Jones... teams just don't value DT's anymore. Only 5 went in the first 3 rounds. And... we already have 2 that fit our scheme perfectly. We were looking for rotational depth only. Travis Jones would have been lucky to see the field 50% of the time in this scheme...with this roster.

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.

[wu-dai clan]

Staley said that he wanted to use Derwin in the slot (Star) and in the middle of the field (Money)

Big slot (Star) will be a 4-2-5. Derwin will be in the slot. Reeder and K9 will be the LB's. We'll have 5 DB's... but be very strong against the run, still.
Dime (Money) will be a 4-1-6. Derwin will be the cover-LB (Kyzir's old roll) with K9 the Mike. 6 DB's... still pretty good vs the run. Vato comes in as the 6th DB.

Or something entirely different.

[powderblueboy]

I have already acknowledged that Anderson was consensus ranked at #159 (first half of the 5th round) versus Woods at #137 (late 4th round). For that value range in the draft, those players represent similar value in addition to being physically very similar (completely refuting the argument that Woods is unique because of his size and speed). Some sources had Anderson ranked higher than Woods, including Zierlein (nfl.com), who Critty cited.

Regarding the source you cited and the assertion that Anderson looked tight against twitchier receivers, that assertion is not supported by Anderson's elite (top 3 of all combine participants this year) 3-cone drill time of 6.64 seconds.

There is much more difference between Travis Jones and Otito Ogbonnia in terms of quality of player than there is between Woods and Anderson. Jones is ranked 143 slots higher than Ogbonnia versus the 22 slot difference between Woods and Anderson, though I think we could have walked away with Jones at #75 and Woods at #123. Outside of a couple of outliers and this forum, Woods is considered pretty much just a guy, whereas people are citing Jones as part of why BAL arguably had the best draft in the NFL this year.

Their physical traits are practically identical, other than the fact that one of them can't cover and has no ball skills

[Guest]

In order to understand JT's value to the Chargers, you have to understand what the Chargers are trying to do on defense.

First and foremost, they are trying to move Derwin into the Star and Money position. In order to do that, they needed another split safety who is good in coverage... specifically on the back end. I suspect we'll see both Derwin and JT on the field at the same time around 80% of the time.

A number of the top safeties were players that don't fit that specific skillset. Daxton Hill, Lewis Cine, Jaquan Brisker, Kerby Joseph, and Tycen Anderson will be used by their teams (as they were in college) in roles that bring them closer to the L.O.S. (ala Derwin) and fill the Star and Money positions. In effect, they were players we weren't even targeting.

The backend defenders were: Bryan Cook, Nick Cross, and JT Woods. Cook was gone... and Staley chose Woods over Cross.
We won't have to tolerate Alohi Gilman on the backend anymore... rejoice!

I understand what the team is trying to with Woods and have since the night he was selected. That the player fits the team's system just means that that is a player that the team would consider drafting. It does not have anything to do with when the player should be drafted.

My only knock on Woods as a player is that after seeing his INTs, I do not think he is quite the ball hawk that Staley and some on this forum think he is. I think most of his INTs were flukish in nature (right place, right time and not really due to closely defending at the time).

The only other point that I have raised about Woods is that the consensus view of him is that he is not worth anywhere near the #79 overall pick. That is simply a statement of fact about the consensus view.

I continue to be of the view that taking a consensus late 4th round player in the middle of round 3 is bad draft strategy as is failing to take advantage of an opportunity to select an early second round ranked player when that opportunity is present. And both together is twice as bad.

Regarding the players you listed, Tycen Anderson is just as big (actually bigger in weight, length of arms and hand size), just as fast, and his 3-cone drill versus Woods' 3-cone drill (Anderson's is .3 seconds faster and in the top 3 of all combine participants) suggests that Anderson may be more agile. Having the same traits and possibly better agility than Woods, it is not readily apparent why he could do the same things that we expect the team to ask Woods to do. In terms of tackling, Woods is kind of a twig and Anderson is 14 pounds heavier at the same height and speed.

In light of that, I think the clear best approach would have been to trade up to get the better player in Jones while hoping to get Woods in round 4, and having Anderson as a fall back option. Instead, we drafted for need and not value, which is not the best approach.

I do not see Woods any sort of special player, but I agree that he would fit the role that you have described and certainly would do so better than Gilman.

[Guest]

Their physical traits are practically identical, other than the fact that one of them can't cover and has no ball skills

Nothing I have seen suggests that their coverage skills are significantly different. I did not see a great cover man at all in Woods when reviewing him and his ball hawking ability is totally overrated. Just watch his INTs. Woods is able to run to the spot where the overthrow is and catch the ball or catch a ball that another defender who had the actual coverage deflected straight into Woods' lap. Woods was not in close coverage on either play, but the ball found him as a fluke.

Anderson's testing shows he is probably more agile than Woods. I think their ball skills are about the same, but Anderson was not the beneficiary of 4-5 free and mostly flukish INTs in 2021 as Woods was. Neither player tracks the ball well with his back to the QB or plays any sort of lockdown coverage. Both players use their speed to close with some effectiveness, but effectiveness that is limited because neither player tracks the ball/receiver that well in certain situations.

Neither player is well refined in terms of coming in and playing very well immediately at the NFL level. That's why both players were ranked in the middle 100s on the consensus big board with Woods being ranked #137 and Anderson #159. We are talking about late 4th round and first half of the 5th round players. The fact that both players are consensus ranked within a single round of each other as late in the draft as they are also indicates that there is very little to pick and choose from between the two players. The consensus rankings do give Woods the advantage, but it is small, not large.

[Critty]

I am not suggesting that the consensus big board is the best board for our team to use. I am suggesting that we should not engage in big reaches versus the consensus big board. If the consensus ranks a player at #137 and we have the player ranked #79 or better, that creates more than a small suggestion that we are an outlier when it comes to assessing the player's value.

In that case, our GM should consider the possibility that 1) he has the player significantly overvalued and 2) the player may go later than he thinks. To put it bluntly, nobody was coming to get Te'o; nobody was coming to get Gordon; nobody was coming to get Palmer or McKitty; and nobody was coming to get Woods. McKitty was considered one of the 10 biggest reaches of the entire draft last year.

Regarding Telesco's board, my assumption all along was that Telesco did not draft early versus his own board when he took Woods just as I do not think Mayock drafted early when he took Leatherwood at #17 overall. .

We reached versus consensus 5 times in 8 picks this year. As I said earlier, someone is going to end up being very wrong with these picks. Of course, I hope it is the consensus, but I think we need to stop these big reaches versus consensus either way.

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.

[powderblueboy]

Nothing I have seen suggests that their coverage skills are significantly different. I did not see a great cover man at all in Woods when reviewing him and his ball hawking ability is totally overrated. Just watch his INTs. Woods is able to run to the spot where the overthrow is and catch the ball or catch a ball that another defender who had the actual coverage deflected straight into Woods' lap. Woods was not in close coverage on either play, but the ball found him as a fluke.

Anderson's testing shows he is probably more agile than Woods. I think their ball skills are about the same, but Anderson was not the beneficiary of 4-5 free and mostly flukish INTs in 2021 as Woods was. Neither player tracks the ball well with his back to the QB or plays any sort of lockdown coverage. Both players use their speed to close with some effectiveness, but effectiveness that is limited because neither player tracks the ball/receiver that well in certain situations.

Neither player is well refined in terms of coming in and playing very well immediately at the NFL level. That's why both players were ranked in the middle 100s on the consensus big board with Woods being ranked #137 and Anderson #159. We are talking about late 4th round and first half of the 5th round players. The fact that both players are consensus ranked within a single round of each other as late in the draft as they are also indicates that there is very little to pick and choose from between the two players. The consensus rankings do give Woods the advantage, but it is small, not large.

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.

[powderblueboy]

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.

How much would you wager critty that draftniks who gave Woods a 5th or 6th round label watched very little of his tape,
and never played or coached the position?