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

[blueman]

Maybe you should submit your resume’?

Pics or it isn’t real!

[DerwinBosa]

Under your analysis, there would have been nothing wrong with us taking Woods at #17 overall. That is ridiculous. What happened was the same problem as that, just to a lesser degree.

.

No. Telesco undoubtedly had Zion Johnson rated higher than than J.T. Woods. Telesco and his staff didn't have anyone rated higher than J.T. Woods when our selection came up in the third round. That's why Woods was the selection in Round 3.

[Guest]

Maybe you should submit your resume’?

Your comment makes no sense at all. I have discussed our draft picks and missed opportunities versus consensus big board rankings.

Nowhere, literally nowhere, have I given any indication of where I had an individual player ranked. This has nothing to do with me.

It is easy to see where we reached and missed opportunities versus consensus big board rankings and I have pointed that out. You do not need to be a GM to see how we wasted draft value because we zeroed in on a particular player. It is exactly what a GM should not do in conducting a draft.

[Guest]

No. Telesco undoubtedly had Zion Johnson rated higher than than J.T. Woods. Telesco and his staff didn't have anyone rated higher than J.T. Woods when our selection came up in the third round. That's why Woods was the selection in Round 3.

The poster to whom I responded (Steve) asserted that it was no big deal that we selected a player early.

If that were so, it would not matter if we selected an UDFA caliber player at #17 overall. Obviously, it matters and matters greatly. The whole point of the draft is to maximize team talent with the picks we have. Whether through trade or selection, we need to use our picks to produce the best overall group of players.

Of course Telesco had Woods as his highest ranked player at #79. He is assuming he knows and that everyone else is wrong and drafting accordingly. He has to be right just to get fair value from the Woods pick.

While it is not always true, when it is one versus the consensus in these NFL player rankings, usually the consensus is correct and the outlier opinion is wrong.

I have already explained several times about a good strategy in these instances where there is a large discrepancy between the GM's ranking and the consensus ranking--take the player at or near the consensus value. That way, if the GM is truly the only one that got it right, then the GM gets great value instead of wasting draft capital on the next Larry English, Jacob Hester, or Jonas Mouton.

There are many players available in the draft. It is a poor draft strategy to be so desirous of a particular player that draft value is sacrificed to reach for the player.

[blueman]

No. Telesco undoubtedly had Zion Johnson rated higher than than J.T. Woods. Telesco and his staff didn't have anyone rated higher than J.T. Woods when our selection came up in the third round. That's why Woods was the selection in Round 3.

Makes too much sense.

[TexanBeerlover]

Your comment makes no sense at all. I have discussed our draft picks and missed opportunities versus consensus big board rankings.

Nowhere, literally nowhere, have I given any indication of where I had an individual player ranked. This has nothing to do with me.

It is easy to see where we reached and missed opportunities versus consensus big board rankings and I have pointed that out. You do not need to be a GM to see how we wasted draft value because we zeroed in on a particular player. It is exactly what a GM should not do in conducting a draft.

Your so deep into lawyering to make your case (wasted draft value) who gives a rats ass. Long as Chargers select impact players who fit into Staley’s puzzle. Really believe these players are the Staley Coaches Preferences, just look at Chargers picks in previous coaching regimes. So maybe maximizing is not part of their equation, if it means passing on a premium fit, over two potential premium fits. Ever heard of a bird in hand is better than two in the bush? Yes it’s conservative. Yes it can be boring. But their putting their job on the line, not us. Easy to play armchair GM with no skin in the game.
:hadworse:

[Guest]

Your so deep into lawyering to make your case (wasted draft value) who gives a rats ass. Long as Chargers select impact players who fit into Staley’s puzzle. Really believe these players are the Staley Coaches Preferences, just look at Chargers picks in previous coaching regimes. So maybe maximizing is not part of their equation, if it means passing on a premium fit, over two potential premium fits. Ever heard of a bird in hand is better than two in the bush? Yes it’s conservative. Yes it can be boring. But their putting their job on the line, not us. Easy to play armchair GM with no skin in the game.
:hadworse:

Maximizing draft pick value is the very definition of a how a GM succeeds in the draft. It is a problem when we pick up less talent through the draft than our opponents. That is the opposite of what we want to be doing, but that is exactly what happens when we reach for players and lack the flexibility of being able to pivot when the draft board presents opportunities to spring into action.

Scheme fit is irrelevant to the player's overall league wide value, though it may limit which teams choose to select the player. Both Travis Jones and Otito Ogbonnia fit our scheme, but one is a consensus big board early/mid round 2 player (Jones) and the other is a an early round 6 player (Ogbonnia). Neither player's value changes because that player fits our scheme.

It should be easy for an NFL GM to conduct the draft as teams have many months to prepare for the draft by the time it finally happens. There is too much at stake for draft strategy errors to be taking place.

[DerwinBosa]

The poster to whom I responded (Steve) asserted that it was no big deal that we selected a player early.

If that were so, it would not matter if we selected an UDFA caliber player at #17 overall. Obviously, it matters and matters greatly. The whole point of the draft is to maximize team talent with the picks we have. Whether through trade or selection, we need to use our picks to produce the best overall group of players.

Of course Telesco had Woods as his highest ranked player at #79. He is assuming he knows and that everyone else is wrong and drafting accordingly. He has to be right just to get fair value from the Woods pick.

While it is not always true, when it is one versus the consensus in these NFL player rankings, usually the consensus is correct and the outlier opinion is wrong.

I have already explained several times about a good strategy in these instances where there is a large discrepancy between the GM's ranking and the consensus ranking--take the player at or near the consensus value. That way, if the GM is truly the only one that got it right, then the GM gets great value instead of wasting draft capital on the next Larry English, Jacob Hester, or Jonas Mouton.

There are many players available in the draft. It is a poor draft strategy to be so desirous of a particular player that draft value is sacrificed to reach for the player.

J.T. Woods was not considered an undrafted free agent. If Tom Telesco is going to risk losing a player he likes the best in the third round by selecting another prospect simply because the Mel Kipers, Todd McShays, Daniel Jeremiahs, and Dane Bruglers of the Mock Draft World think Woods should go later, then he should be fired immediately.

For the record, I'm not a fan of Telesco, since this team has missed the playoffs seven of the nine years he's been general manager, but I'm not going to doubt a prospect such as J.T. Woods when I have never actually seen him play.

[Steve]

The poster to whom I responded (Steve) asserted that it was no big deal that we selected a player early.

If that were so, it would not matter if we selected an UDFA caliber player at #17 overall. Obviously, it matters and matters greatly. The whole point of the draft is to maximize team talent with the picks we have. Whether through trade or selection, we need to use our picks to produce the best overall group of players.

Of course Telesco had Woods as his highest ranked player at #79. He is assuming he knows and that everyone else is wrong and drafting accordingly. He has to be right just to get fair value from the Woods pick.

While it is not always true, when it is one versus the consensus in these NFL player rankings, usually the consensus is correct and the outlier opinion is wrong.

I have already explained several times about a good strategy in these instances where there is a large discrepancy between the GM's ranking and the consensus ranking--take the player at or near the consensus value. That way, if the GM is truly the only one that got it right, then the GM gets great value instead of wasting draft capital on the next Larry English, Jacob Hester, or Jonas Mouton.

There are many players available in the draft. It is a poor draft strategy to be so desirous of a particular player that draft value is sacrificed to reach for the player.

I love how you are putting words in my mouth.

First what does EARLY mean? The draft is a way to get good players. If the player is productive that is all that matters.

Second, the earlier post was about how ridiculous your sense of value is. This entire thread has devolved into you disagreeing with TTdraft, nothing more.

[sonorajim]

Re Woods I believe Staley wanted a S with his characteristics. Size, speed, ball instincts and HBK was the best available at 79. Six safeties were taken ahead of him

[blueman]

Re Woods I believe Staley wanted a S with his characteristics. Size, speed, ball instincts and HBK was the best available at 79. Six safeties were taken ahead of him

Also a lot of those safeties chosen before Woods were midgets without Woods’ closing speed and ball skills.

[La Costa Boy]

Also a lot of those safeties chosen before Woods were midgets without Woods’ closing speed and ball skills.

Ummmmmmmm.....there's that.........