Official Chargers News - Injury Updates

[richpjr]

The problem with the FA vs drafted player is that you can both draft and sign good players and bad players. Doesn't matter how your roster was constructed, it matters that what players are on the roster. I think given the preference, most teams would want to build through the draft as it is cheaper than overpaying for FAs.

[Lightningwill_420]

Part 1: I don't know what this proves other than Part 2: you are guessing who is going to start (and keeping it to yourself) and presumably that Denver is going to repeat (?).

Part 3: An awful lot of the players you have listed as FA are not FA. Your methodology is flawed. Part 4: Players listed as FA need to have been FA, not players signed off the street or traded for. I really can't tell because you don't list who is who. Demarcus Ware was not a FA for Denver, he was cut by the Cowboys and signed off the street. Guys who get cut from other teams are pretty well motivated. Flowers was cut by by KC, played well, then signed a FA contract and he sucked, which proves my point.

We also don't know who is starting for either team, yet. I am guessing that you have Clady listed as the Denver LT, but they just signed Okung and Clady is about to get cut if Denver can't find a trading partner. Until the Clady thing works it's way out no one really knows.

Second, and far more importantly, we don't know if any of the new bunch are any going to play well. Our starting LG was a true FA, but he was fucking AWFUL. He was easily the worst player on our starting OL. He also only played a few games, so we had guys playing off the street last year. Franklin is one of the players that proves my point most clearly. He was, and will be a starter for us in 2016 because of his contract. We are paying him way to much money to sit him and bring in a player who will push him. But the team would be a whole lot better off if Franklin was competing for his starting job. FA is a problem because for NFL teams because it robs them of the ability to allow players to compete.

The other 3 things that would be much more relevant is:
1). since not too many teams repeat, last years teams. It also allows you to put in things like Robinson over Watt, which shows were we were weak (either the injury thing for Watt or that Robinson was a backup forced to start almost the entire season);
2). list the players who actually play, starters are not the guys who play. Denver, like just about every other team in football only plays it's base D less than 20-25% of the time. Roby was the 11th starter on D. And Denver left one of their S off the field a lot of nickle downs, in favor of extra CB;
3). before you rely too much on 2 isolated cases, maybe look at FA as a whole. Denver is an exception because they have the pick of all FA, and everyone knew they were playing for a SB. Look around the league and you will see a different story.
Part Last: Look at other rosters and you see most of the top teams are not big players in FA and are built through the draft. Carolina and Cinci are both teams that have been built through the draft, and are positioned for long term success. For the most part, teams like us, Miami and NY Giants, who keep relying on FA will continue to suck until they find ways to geir drafts and stop using FA to compensate. Look at ESPN bloggers and the consistent theme around the league is that most GM know that continued success comes from the draft, not from singning FA, because they know it is like pissing upwind.

Great Googlymoogly, my phone messed up your quote. How'd Part 2 disappear? Anyway, hopefully you can figure out what I tried to bold from your post.

Part 1: It isn't proof, but it is substantial evidence against your recent statement: "I think the problem is that people think that FA signings are the sure thing, and draft picks are the low risk signings. ... It just doesn't happen to be true."
Elway clearly doesn't believe what you believe, and he's a Super Bowl champion general manager. The Donkeys didn't have a high percentage of draft picks as starters when they won the Super Bowl. Of course, it does help when some of the games are rigged, so your point may still stand.

Part 2: Yes, I am guessing who would start for the San Diego Chargers this season if it were to begin today. No, I am not guessing who is going to start in last year's Super Bowl. I looked that up.

Part 3: No, not an "awful lot" of the guys listed as free agents are not free agents. Some weren't. I did mention in my editor's note my methodology for labeling a player as "free agent" or "drafted". It's at the end of the message you quoted. I wasn't trying to hide anything.

Part 4: Fine. Recently, you said there was a reason guys signed through free agency were allowed by their teams to become free agents. I'm assuming there is a reason why "guys off the street" were allowed to become guys off the street and that there is a reason a "traded" player was traded.

Part Last: Okay, I'll look.

Carolina's starters from last year's Super Bowl:

QB - Drafted by Panthers
RB - Drafted by Panthers
FB - Not drafted by Panthers
WR - Drafted by Panthers
WR - Not drafted by Panthers
TE - Not drafted by Panthers
LT - Not drafted by Panthers
LG - Drafted by Panthers
C - Drafted by Panthers
RG - Drafted by Panthers
RT - Not drafted by Panthers

DE - Not drafted by Panthers
DE - Drafted by Panthers
DT - Drafted by Panthers
DT - Drafted by Panthers
LB - Drafted by Panthers
LB - Drafted by Panthers
LB - Drafted by Panthers
CB - Drafted by Panthers, then he left for three years, then he came back
CB - Not drafted by Panthers
S - Not drafted by Panthers
S - Not drafted by Panthers

12 starters from the Panthers' Super Bowl team were Panthers draft picks. They had 13 if you count the guy who left and came back.
The San Diego Chargers currently have 13 drafted players who would likely be starters if the season started today.

When I type "draft pick" in this post, I include undrafted free agents who were signed as rookies.

Here's my list of Chargers draft picks who I consider starters right now:

1. Rivers
2. Gordon
3. Allen
4. Either Inman or Herndon would be the starting third wide receiver - if it's Stevie Johnson or if we start a veteran fullback, then I guess I'm wrong here, and you can reduce my list to 12.
5. Watt
6. Fluker
7. Liuget
8. Attaochu
9. Ingram
10. Te'o
11. Perryman
12. Verrett
13. Gates

Oh, the Cinci Kitties, you were right about. 17 of their starters from last year were drafted by the team. Are the 2015 Bengals the team we want to emulate though? They are kind of the weirdos of the league, which hasn't really been our style.

[Lightningwill_420]

Glad you're not the GM.

Thanks, Bernie. I suppose you like 4-12.

[Lightningwill_420]

He does.....just not as much as you do

You're right. He probably does. According to my research, Telesco has the right mythical balance of shit between rookies and free agents. Now, if he could only start picking the right free agents. To be fair, I would have picked the same loser free agents Telesco did (well, not Donald Brown) and would have not picked his big winner - King Dunlap. So, at this point, he's one player (less than one player if we count not signing Donald Brown) better than I am. To be honest though, I am not a professional general manager getting paid big bucks to make the right decisions. Considering that Telesco is one player up on me in free agency and one player down from me on whose contract to extend (Butler), he's not much better than a stoned amateur with limited access to information about players. My King Dunlap knowledge was entirely based on the drunken screams of a Philly fan I hung out with in a bar. Why the fuck is Telesco still our general manager? And why the fuck am I the one who has to whine about it? Shouldn't one of our smarter posters be all over this? I don't get it. Just like I don't get President Donald Trump and I don't get non-fat mayonnaise, I don't get this.

[Lightningwill_420]

The problem with the FA vs drafted player is that you can both draft and sign good players and bad players. Doesn't matter how your roster was constructed, it matters that what players are on the roster. I think given the preference, most teams would want to build through the draft as it is cheaper than overpaying for FAs.

Yep. My only point about drafted players vs. free agents was that it doesn't matter. If the Donkeys can win the Super Bowl with half their team being drafted by somebody else, then why can't we? Okay, we don't have as many games rigged in our favor, but that's beside the point.

[Bolt-O]

[Beerman]

We need to keep building the defense. Just look at the super bowl winners. All defense. The game has changed. Wiz hopefully simplifies the offense more and uses better protection packages for Rivers. We don't need to go into a spread offense for 95% of the game. Maybe even use an I back formation occasionally. There are other ways to win games.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

Yeah Beerman! You are wise!

[blueman]

Broncos had a great D, but they also had 24 points on the scoreboard in the SB. We need both.

[Steve]

Great Googlymoogly, my phone messed up your quote. How'd Part 2 disappear? Anyway, hopefully you can figure out what I tried to bold from your post.

Part 1: It isn't proof, but it is substantial evidence against your recent statement: "I think the problem is that people think that FA signings are the sure thing, and draft picks are the low risk signings. ... It just doesn't happen to be true."
Elway clearly doesn't believe what you believe, and he's a Super Bowl champion general manager. The Donkeys didn't have a high percentage of draft picks as starters when they won the Super Bowl. Of course, it does help when some of the games are rigged, so your point may still stand.

Part 2: Yes, I am guessing who would start for the San Diego Chargers this season if it were to begin today. No, I am not guessing who is going to start in last year's Super Bowl. I looked that up.

Part 3: No, not an "awful lot" of the guys listed as free agents are not free agents. Some weren't. I did mention in my editor's note my methodology for labeling a player as "free agent" or "drafted". It's at the end of the message you quoted. I wasn't trying to hide anything.

Part 4: Fine. Recently, you said there was a reason guys signed through free agency were allowed by their teams to become free agents. I'm assuming there is a reason why "guys off the street" were allowed to become guys off the street and that there is a reason a "traded" player was traded.

Part Last: Okay, I'll look.

Carolina's starters from last year's Super Bowl:

QB - Drafted by Panthers
RB - Drafted by Panthers
FB - Not drafted by Panthers
WR - Drafted by Panthers
WR - Not drafted by Panthers
TE - Not drafted by Panthers
LT - Not drafted by Panthers
LG - Drafted by Panthers
C - Drafted by Panthers
RG - Drafted by Panthers
RT - Not drafted by Panthers

DE - Not drafted by Panthers
DE - Drafted by Panthers
DT - Drafted by Panthers
DT - Drafted by Panthers
LB - Drafted by Panthers
LB - Drafted by Panthers
LB - Drafted by Panthers
CB - Drafted by Panthers, then he left for three years, then he came back
CB - Not drafted by Panthers
S - Not drafted by Panthers
S - Not drafted by Panthers

12 starters from the Panthers' Super Bowl team were Panthers draft picks. They had 13 if you count the guy who left and came back.
The San Diego Chargers currently have 13 drafted players who would likely be starters if the season started today.

When I type "draft pick" in this post, I include undrafted free agents who were signed as rookies.

Here's my list of Chargers draft picks who I consider starters right now:

1. Rivers
2. Gordon
3. Allen
4. Either Inman or Herndon would be the starting third wide receiver - if it's Stevie Johnson or if we start a veteran fullback, then I guess I'm wrong here, and you can reduce my list to 12.
5. Watt
6. Fluker
7. Liuget
8. Attaochu
9. Ingram
10. Te'o
11. Perryman
12. Verrett
13. Gates

Oh, the Cinci Kitties, you were right about. 17 of their starters from last year were drafted by the team. Are the 2015 Bengals the team we want to emulate though? They are kind of the weirdos of the league, which hasn't really been our style.

So one teams expereince qualifies as proof? The Donkies may have gotten more miles out of FA then any other team since FA started, but we will do jsut as good.

If we use that, how about how many big money FA have we hit on lately? Franklin, Gaithers and Cox really lighting it up are they? How about the various teams who were "winners" in FA year after year? Denver did very, very little in FA last year, but won this year. But how about a couple years ago when they were much more active?

And you keep on this bullshit that there is no difference between adding a player in a trade or off the street vs as a FA. There is all the difference in the world. We may not care where they came from, but the guy getting paid has a lot less motivation to keep his shit together then a guy who got cut or booted out of his last job via trade. Signing FA is completely different from signing other teams players via trade or as street FA. We have had a fair amount of luck through those paths.

AS far as your assertion that the Bengals are wierdos, maybe they are, I don't know what you mean by that. But if you mean they consistently win and get in the playoffs, then we could use a bit of that. Teams like GB are also not active in FA, and they also end up in the playoffs year after year. Miami, and the Jags, not so much (no income tax in FL), the height of mercenary, and they piss money away on players left and right, but don't get any better.

Again, a much better way of looking at a roster instead of lumping all players regardless of how they arrive, is look at the FA lists from last year (Hint, google NFL FA 2015). Then go down the list and see who played well. The guys with the biggest contracts usually play the worse. Ask Suh. over a $100 mill for similar production to Liuget (also overpaid, but less so), and Suh got some of his production because of Oliver and Wake being on the same DL. Wasn't everyone saying he was a can't miss prospect?

[Lightningwill_420]

So one team's experience qualifies as proof? The Donkies may have gotten more miles out of FA then any other team since FA started, but we will do jsut as good.

If we use that, how about how many big money FA have we hit on lately? Franklin, Gaithers and Cox really lighting it up are they? How about the various teams who were "winners" in FA year after year? Denver did very, very little in FA last year, but won this year. But how about a couple years ago when they were much more active?

And you keep on this bullshit that there is no difference between adding a player in a trade or off the street vs as a FA. There is all the difference in the world. We may not care where they came from, but the guy getting paid has a lot less motivation to keep his shit together then a guy who got cut or booted out of his last job via trade. Signing FA is completely different from signing other teams players via trade or as street FA. We have had a fair amount of luck through those paths.

AS far as your assertion that the Bengals are wierdos, maybe they are, I don't know what you mean by that. But if you mean they consistently win and get in the playoffs, then we could use a bit of that. Teams like GB are also not active in FA, and they also end up in the playoffs year after year. Miami, and the Jags, not so much (no income tax in FL), the height of mercenary, and they piss money away on players left and right, but don't get any better.

Again, a much better way of looking at a roster instead of lumping all players regardless of how they arrive, is look at the FA lists from last year (Hint, google NFL FA 2015). Then go down the list and see who played well. The guys with the biggest contracts usually play the worse. Ask Suh. over a $100 mill for similar production to Liuget (also overpaid, but less so), and Suh got some of his production because of Oliver and Wake being on the same DL. Wasn't everyone saying he was a can't miss prospect?

Okay. I gave you two teams - both the teams from last year's Super Bowl. I also said specifically that it wasn't proof.

I love the information you provide here, but I don't get why you often want to fight with me over stuff I never said. You clearly know a great deal more about football than I do, but what I write isn't bullshit. Okay, a lot of it is. But what I posted here wasn't bullshit. It was just evidence (not proof) that it doesn't matter the manner in which a team is built.

We are in need of a couple starters on the interior of our offensive line, and it doesn't look like one is going to be ideal with the #3 pick. After that, it's a crapshoot. Our best bet for having a decent offensive line next year is to make free-agent signings or to make trades. We have the best quarterback in the league, and, with the same offensive line we had last year, we're still going to be battling it out for last place. Give him some fucking protection, and we are instant playoff contenders.

[Lightningwill_420]

We need to keep building the defense. Just look at the super bowl winners. All defense. The game has changed. Wiz hopefully simplifies the offense more and uses better protection packages for Rivers. We don't need to go into a spread offense for 95% of the game. Maybe even use an I back formation occasionally. There are other ways to win games.

Defense wins when there is some semblance of an offense. We don't have to do it exactly as other teams have. We got the best quarterback in the game. We owe it to everybody to give him the protection he deserves.