Official 2019 Pre Draft Discussion

[Panamamike]

agree

Win now. Next year is for next draft. I have doubts he be fully rehabbed by playoffs, let alone in game shape.

Oline and dline are way different as far as cohesion etc. Look how fast HH and Ingram came back. Each situation is different. They have the medical evals and we do not.

[Topcat]

Loving the Dalton Risner NFL 360 Piece. Check it out

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-360

Wow, awesome video! I got kind of choked up--so impressed by Risner and how he spends time with the handicapped, the shut-ins, etc. To create his own foundation at his young age is amazing. I already had Risner at the top of my mock, and now I'm even more impressed with him. Not only does he have the talent, he's a true high character guy! Thanks for sharing, Fleet!

[Guest]

Wow, awesome video! I got kind of choked up--so impressed by Risner and how he spends time with the handicapped, the shut-ins, etc. To create his own foundation at his young age is amazing. I already had Risner at the top of my mock, and now I'm even more impressed with him. Not only does he have the talent, he's a true high character guy! Thanks for sharing, Fleet!

Ditto, wow. I'll be rooting for that kid no matter where he goes.

[La Costa Boy]

Loving the Dalton Risner NFL 360 Piece. Check it out

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-360

Wow. What an outstanding human being. Draft the man TT!!!

[Formula 21]

Which programs best develop elite prospects? A five-year study

By Chris HummerMon Apr 22 2019
21 featured at least one five-star prospect on its roster.

Development, the labor of transforming talent to production, is what closes the gap between those with recruiting riches and those without. It can also serve as a wedge that separates powerhouses from everyone else.

As we approach the 2019 NFL Draft, there isn't a better time to reexamine the development process. 247Sports' annual list of 32 five-star recruits mirrors the first round of the NFL Draft, making the Top247 an ideal place to start. Top247 players are considered the can't-miss members of their class, talents that will translate to the NFL if refined under the right circumstances - health, a good work ethic, character and high-level coaching.

247Sports examined the first five years of Top247 data in order to determine how top programs nationally have developed four and five-star players. Those classes, 2010-14, span a full spectrum of eligibility across a five-year period. There are some holdouts from the 2014 class (fifth-year seniors). For the most part, however, the 1,235 prospects have exhausted their eligibility or filtered out of college football.

To fairly access a successful development, 247Sports created a "Development Rating." It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program had along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program's ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks. The NFL often will draft late-round fliers on talent alone - think Kahlil McKenzie in the sixth round last year.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data: 1. Players who were dismissed. 2. Players who didn't qualify. 3. Players who medically retired. 4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team's 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.

Lastly, Top247 players don't fully speak to a program's ability to develop. The more impressive examples are often when teams find undervalued talent and shape it into NFL potential. That's why schools like TCU, Wisconsin and Boise State have found outsized success since 2000. Yet, as we annually salivate over four and five-star prospects, this study is meant to spotlight the programs that do the most with those players.

It should come as no surprise some of the most successful teams of this decade sit near the top of this list.

9193115.png

[Topcat]

Which programs best develop elite prospects? A five-year study

By Chris HummerMon Apr 22 2019
21 featured at least one five-star prospect on its roster.

Development, the labor of transforming talent to production, is what closes the gap between those with recruiting riches and those without. It can also serve as a wedge that separates powerhouses from everyone else.

As we approach the 2019 NFL Draft, there isn't a better time to reexamine the development process. 247Sports' annual list of 32 five-star recruits mirrors the first round of the NFL Draft, making the Top247 an ideal place to start. Top247 players are considered the can't-miss members of their class, talents that will translate to the NFL if refined under the right circumstances - health, a good work ethic, character and high-level coaching.

247Sports examined the first five years of Top247 data in order to determine how top programs nationally have developed four and five-star players. Those classes, 2010-14, span a full spectrum of eligibility across a five-year period. There are some holdouts from the 2014 class (fifth-year seniors). For the most part, however, the 1,235 prospects have exhausted their eligibility or filtered out of college football.

To fairly access a successful development, 247Sports created a "Development Rating." It's a measure that takes into account the total number of Top247 prospects a program had along with where/if those players were drafted (3 points for 1st rounders, 2 points for 2nd-3rd, 1 for 4th-7th), dividing the total number of prospects by the point total to create the rating. This removes any advantage created by a program's ability to recruit an overwhelming number of Top247 players. It also rewards programs that produce more first- and second-day picks. The NFL often will draft late-round fliers on talent alone - think Kahlil McKenzie in the sixth round last year.

To more accurately represent how a program develops players, 247Sports removed four categories of prospects from the data: 1. Players who were dismissed. 2. Players who didn't qualify. 3. Players who medically retired. 4. Players who transferred after two or fewer seasons on campus. If a player stayed three years and transferred, they count against a team's 'not drafted' tab. If a player transferred and was drafted elsewhere, they count for the team to which they transferred.

Lastly, Top247 players don't fully speak to a program's ability to develop. The more impressive examples are often when teams find undervalued talent and shape it into NFL potential. That's why schools like TCU, Wisconsin and Boise State have found outsized success since 2000. Yet, as we annually salivate over four and five-star prospects, this study is meant to spotlight the programs that do the most with those players.

It should come as no surprise some of the most successful teams of this decade sit near the top of this list.

9193115.png

No USC, no UCLA, no Stanford, Washington, Oregon...interesting...

[Formula 21]

No USC, no UCLA, no Stanford, Washington, Oregon...interesting...

Pretty much all southern schools.

[Formula 21]

Mock Draft Roundup: Final expert projections for Chargers in 2019 NFL draft


By: Gavino Borquez | 3 hours ago

We have officially reached the day before the draft. The Chargers will be on the clock at the tail end of the night, and analysts are making their final predictions for who Los Angeles may choose at No. 28.
It's been a mixed bag for many media pundits' projections on who they believe L.A. will select on Thursday night.

With that, let's take a look to see how many see the draft shaping up for the Bolts.

Washinton Post's John Clayton: Chris Lindstrom, G, Boston College
"Jerry Tillery is a player to watch if he falls this far, but with him off the board in this case, the Chargers can instead opt for offensive line help. Lindstrom is a former tackle who can play there or at guard in the pros, and he has a nasty streak that Chargers coaches will love."

USA Today's Nate Davis: Dexter Lawrence, DT, Clemson
"He's a 6-4, 342-pound load who would add a significant roadblock to the middle of the Bolts' defense. And if he lands here and gets flanked by pass rushers Joey Bosa and Melvin Ingram, opponents will immediately find themselves in a pick-your-poison dilemma on passing downs, where Lawrence may be underrated."

Sporting News' Vinnie Iyer: Jerry Tillery, DT, Notre Dame

"The Chargers need someone else who can get to the quarterback from the inside to better complement what Joey Bosa and Melvin Ingram do on the outside. At 6-6, 295 pounds, Tillery was a beast as a three-technique in college, and he backed that up with a stellar Combine. He matured with his play and temperament to unleash his pass-rush skills in his final season with the Irish. Quarterback also will be a positional consideration here."

Bleacher Report's Mike Freeman: Chris Lindstrom, G, Boston College

"This is another potential destination for Cardinals quarterback Josh Rosen. Teams also are telling me the Chargers want to add more pieces to their offensive line, and at 6'4″, 308 pounds, Lindstrom would be a big one."

Walter Football: Rock Ya-Sin, CB, Temple

"The Chargers have a shutdown cornerback in Casey Hayward, but they have a huge hole opposite of him. They could snatch the first cornerback off the board to fill that huge need."

NFL Media's Charles Davis: Rock Ya-Sin, Temple

"Tough and loves to get in a receiver's face. Also, did I mention that he's tough? The secondary keeps getting stronger for the Bolts. I could also see them taking safety Taylor Rapp here to complement All-Pro Derwin James."

ESPN's Eric D. Williams: Dexter Lawrence, DT, Clemson

"The Chargers have not drafted a quarterback since 2013 and have done extensive work on this year's class. However, the Bolts signed backup QB Tyrod Taylor to decent money and probably will take a developmental prospect later in the draft. Currently, the Chargers have three defensive tackles on the roster in Brandon Mebane, Justin Jones and T.Y. McGill, so Lawrence gives the Bolts a big body who can defend the run and push the pocket."

NBC Sports' Peter King: Cody Ford, OL, Oklahoma

Could be a strange change for Ford. He protected for the fleet Kyler Murray at Oklahoma last year, and, if this happens, he'd be protecting for the statue-esque Philip Rivers in L.A. The Chargers have to start planning for the future up front; Russell Okung enters his 10th season and turns 31 this year. Ford's a good building block for GM Tom Telesco.

The Draft Network's Benjamin Solak: Dalton Risner, OL, Kansas State

"The Chargers showed a clear interest in investing in the offensive line in the beginning of Anthony Lynn's tenure; they have a potential needs at both right tackle and right guard; and the Chargers really love drafting Senior Bowl players. Bring me Risner and let's go kick some tail.

I think Risner is worth a look at tackle, where his length and technique both shine. Players with slower feet and less explosiveness than Risner have survived out there, though there is some concern with Risner's balance when faced with shifty rushers. Either way, love his energy and tone-setting aggression."

[Boltjolt]

No USC, no UCLA, no Stanford, Washington, Oregon...interesting...

I think the key word needs to be switched from "Developes" to Recruits. So no, those teams shouldnt b on there. They havent been that good the last ten years. At least not like the teams on that list.

Stanford was just better than par for the course when they had a better recruiting lately. UCLA hasnt been a big threat in years. Oregon back to average after Chip left and his recruits were gone a few years later.

[Panamamike]

I think the key word needs to be switched from "Developes" to Recruits. So no, those teams shouldnt b on there. They havent been that good the last ten years. At least not like the teams on that list.

Stanford was just better than par for the course when they had a better recruiting lately. UCLA hasnt been a big threat in years. Oregon back to average after Chip left and his recruits were gone a few years later.

Oregon got a great recruiter as their new HC. Fantastic class this year and should build a really strong future there.

[Xenos]

For the Taylor Rapp supporters:
https://theathletic.com/940089/2019/...sus-big-board/

Data and technology are rapidly making their mark on the football evaluation industry. The application of these numbers into scouting, usually called analytics, is itself fairly polarizing. But the NFL is broadly adopting many of these concepts into the scouting process.

The Vikings are adopting heuristics to improve traditional scouting by figuring out which of their scouts are the best at evaluating particular positions while the Patriots are somewhat famous for using data to improve their methods. We've been doing some data analysis of our own, releasing a big board of the top 300 players in the draft as determined by a consensus of over 40 draft analysts, which you can check out here.

How players perform on the field and in the workouts at their pro days gives us a lot of information to work with, so long as the data is treated carefully and within context. Primarily, traditional scouting provides the framework for evaluation, with data applied afterward to tweak conclusions.

Not only that, it's important to understand that the data doesn't tell us definitively which players are going to be good, only which players have better odds than their similarly-graded peers to break out and have an impact.

For example, the fact that TCU edge rusher Ben Banogu has a better analytical profile than Ohio State product Nick Bosa doesn't mean that Banogu is a better player than Bosa -- in all likelihood, Bosa will be a better player. Instead, it means that Banogu has better odds than other edge rushers that might be picked in the same area as he will be to perform at a high level.

This approach has helped teams identify gems outside of the first round: the Vikings used a combination of workout data and traditional scouting to identify Danielle Hunter, while the Falcons did the same to grab linebacker Foyesade Oluokun.

Below, we'll look at the biggest risers and fallers based on the best available data and isolate a new, analytics-driven top 100. When we update the consensus big board before the draft to include new boards and information, we'll also have a ranking for those players in the "analytics" big board.

All the players listed below will have production, age and athleticism scores listed with them, with those scores meant to be read like an IQ score, or OPS+ in baseball -- where 100 is average, and every 15 points represents one standard deviation (if you're unfamiliar with standard deviation, think of it each standard deviation as one tier).

The final score is not an average of the other three scores because those scores have a relationship with each other (productive players tend to be athletic), a final modifier was used to even out those relationships.

Risers

Taylor Rapp, S Washington

Overall Score	Productivity	Athleticism	Age
132.3	120.8	123.4	128.1

Safeties don't respond to data analysis as well as other positions, likely because they don't impact plays in ways that are statistically easy to measure. Earl Thomas forces quarterbacks to throw short and to the sidelines because of his range, but it doesn't always show up in his coverage statistics. Production is a good indicator of future success, it just isn't a great one.

The determinants of success at safety are very similar to linebacker and cornerback, which makes sense considering their job is a combination of those two roles. Good safeties tended to have a higher market share of solo tackles in college and higher ball hawk rates than similarly drafted counterparts.

Rapp stands out in this type of analysis. In coverage, he only allowed 0.13 yards per snap, the best of any safety in the top 300 of the consensus board. When accounting for the added value of denying touchdowns and forcing interceptions, he doesn't quite meet the adjusted yards value of Nasir Adderley or Jaquan Johnson, but he comes fairly close -- not having allowed a touchdown and generating two picks.

He also ranks in the top 70 percent in tackle production and the top 95 percent in avoiding missed tackles. His statistics show he's an elite coverage defender and a strong run defender.

Many came away from his pro day showing, where he ran a 4.78 40-yard dash, arguing that he's actually much more of a box safety than a free safety, despite a PFF coverage grade that led the PAC-12 and was one of the best in the FBS.

But that 40-yard dash time, while not insignificant, isn't as important, historically, as agility scores and explosion scores, not to mention overall size. Heavier safeties and agile safeties matter much more than faster safeties.

The fact that he ran a 3.99-second short shuttle, which ranks in the 98th percentile among safeties, helps bolster his score a lot more than the 40-yard dash hurts it. Beyond his agility times are his adequate explosion scores. He just clears the filters for broad jump, and my research shows that beyond 9'2" -- a fairly low threshold -- additional performance in the broad jump doesn't correlate to any more success.

[Lone Bolt]

For the Taylor Rapp supporters:
https://theathletic.com/940089/2019/...sus-big-board/

Thanks! Good stuff. Not a popular opinion, but would love it if we found a way to use him here...but our staff would have to believe that in addition to his quickness, and overall football abilities, which are top notch, that he actually was faster than his 40 time, and had enough range to man that single high...but I'm a Rapp homer, so maybe I'm dreaming here.
Good news though if we do like him...he might make it to #60.