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

[equivocation]

If I remember well, P. Mahomes was a late first rounder consensus in 2017.
The Chiefs drafted him 10th.
Is this a reach ?

https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/players/2017/patrick-mahomes

You're right huge reach what idiots. Reuben Foster was still on the board!

[Topcat]

The minimal film I’ve seen … the kid has really good hands. Not just that he caught it, but the way he catches belies a guy who can catch well. And just catching the gifts given (mistakes) is a big improvement over the assortment of stone handed DBs we’ve had out there at times. QBs will throw an occasional error, if you don’t make them pay, it didn’t happen.

Hes got wicked closing speed, QBs better be sure where they are going and they better gun it. Tua Rainbows will not find a pot of gold like they did in Tuscaloosa.

or he could just be a fast dude completely lost out there in the world of professional football. Beats me. I trust in Staley for now.

Yep...almost like Kyle Hamilton...Woods could well be quite a steal...and looking forward to a POT of PICKS at the end of those Tua Rainbows...

[DerwinBosa]

Right, Woods was considered a consensus late round 4 prospect, which is why the pick was poor in terms of value and why the pick represents bad drafting. I think that you are glossing over the word consensus as if we were just comparing Telesco's opinion to one other opinion.

Nobody is saying that Telesco should defer to any one pundit's view. However, if his take is hugely out of line with the consensus ranking of hundreds of analysts, that Telesco's opinion is an outlier should indicate to Telesco that 1) there is an increased likelihood that his ranking very well could be wrong and 2) the player may not go as high as he appears on Telesco's board. Of course, players should be passed over if they can be drafted later in the draft (regardless of how the GM ranks them).

Here, the better move would have been to trade up to #75 and take Travis Jones, the consensus #44 ranked player, who some had as a late round 1 prospect instead of taking the #137 ranked player. This is an easy call. Then, we could have come back in the 4th round and drafted Woods still early, but at least closer to his actual value.

But even if we were unlucky and someone else reached for Woods, who cares? Getting a round 1-2 ranked player in round 3 represents a clear steal of a much better player.

And what if Tom Telesco didn't like Travis Jones at all? Do you still think he should have moved up and drafted him at #75 and risked losing a player he liked better?

Let's just throw this out there: Telesco likes J.T. Woods A LOT. He doesn't like Travis Jones at all. He trades up to get Jones at #75 because the consensus has him ranked #44. He's OK with not taking Woods in Round 3 because the consensus has him ranked #137. Woods gets picked before we're up in the fourth round.

How is this a smart move by Telesco?

[powderblueboy]

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.

I think GMs should just fire the scouting department and get a copy of Chaincrusher's consensus big board.

It would make drafting so much easier.

[Critty]

Where exactly is consensus on players in draft?

There isnt even consensus on a Top10.

You could have as many 25 players all be in the top 10 at some point of draft on some list or mock.

Definitely after top 50 players the consensus is even less strong as as to where the player value really should be.
As far as JT Woods, PFN had this to say..."Early on, Woods is best as a deep safety in two-high and single-high looks, but his ability to play at different depths and adapt is extremely valuable. You rarely find defensive backs with ball-hawking and enforcing traits all in one, but that's what Woods provides. He is quickly trending up late in draft season. If he tests as well as expected, he could reasonably crack the top 75 or maybe even the top 50.

NFL.com had him as a 6.19 score which is backup with starter potential. Isn't that what you want from Rd3 a prospect with starter potential.

NFL Draft Scout had projection of Rd 3-4. High projection of Rd 2. Low projection of Rd4.

PFF had him as #154. Which is early Rd5.

Daniel Jeremiah Top 150 board had JT Woods at #67. Early 3rd.

SI final board had Woods at #146 early 5th.

Huddle Report #121 mid 4th.

So if you go with PFN, NFL.com, Daniel Jeremiah, NFL draft Scout boards then you will think JT Woods was a solid pick per the boards.

If you look at Huddle, SI, or PFF, then at #79 was a reach.

But, only two boards (SI and PFF) thought he should be there at #123 in Rd 4. All the others had him ranked high enough to go earlier than mid Rd 4. Some as high as bottom Rd 2.

If Staley wanted Woods. #79 is the place to pick him as the consensus says it's very risky to think he will still be available at #123. Draft day choice needed to be made.

There is no consensus that JT Woods was a reach at #79..

But you know, evidence, it's that thing that really helps supports a good argument. And in this case the evidence is lacking to call JT Woods a reach.

Case dismissed.

[Boltnut]

I don't think JT was a reach. I think JT just happened to be valued higher by Staley than the "experts".
Nick Cross was still there at #79. And Cross was a safety that most "experts" had going before #79.
I think Staley was looking for a safety that excelled in coverage. He also wanted a player that can cause turnovers. JT does both of those things well.

Having a starter-quality safety allows Staley to move Derwin up into the "Star" and "Money" positions.
He'll be replacing CHJ in big nickel (Star) alignments... and replacing Kizer in dime (Money) alignments.
You have to get your best players (Derwin) more involved. Drafting JT Woods allows Staley to do that.

I believe the "Big Nickel" will align 4-2-5 and be very stout vs the run (a big problem of ours last year) and vs the pass.
Bosa ^ AJ ^ SJD ^ Mack
Reeder ^ K9
JCJ ^ Derwin ^ ASJ
Woods ^ Adderly

We can easily sub Vato/Callahan for Reader if we need to go dime alignment... and still be fairly stout vs the run.
Bosa ^ CC ^ JT ^ Mack
K9
JCJ ^ Derwin ^ Vato/Callahan ^ ASJ
Woods ^ Adderly

Once you realize the NFL's tendencies, Woods makes a lot of sense.
Eventually, the "experts" will catch up.

[Maniaque 6]

I think it's too early to call J.T Wood a reach.
Tillery, Gordon, Matthews are.

[TexanBeerlover]

In the moment, Chaincrusher lives and breathes, I get it, but it is a false trap because doesn’t consider time and doesn’t consider development and sense of loyalty between player/coach.

I felt similar after 2021 draft. Felt both 3rd’s (Palmer/McKitty) and 4th (Rumph) were reaches. Understood positions (WR/TE/Edge) just not the picks. But slowly they worked into the roster taken more reps, especially Palmer and by end of season, McKitty was blowing up opponents with his blocking. Do I wish it happened faster, heck yeah, but they all look promising just not out of the gate promising.

Could be the real value Staley brings to the table, roster building. Players with a chip on their shoulder, overlooked, hard working who show continuous gains to becoming starting players who actually like each other and play well together. So this is why I’m cutting Staley/Telesco slack this year and do expect big things from JT Woods out of the gate, more in fact than Palmer who was a hit in 2021.

[Guest]

TT’s third round record speaks for itself so i cannot vouch for 2022 Telesco. But consensus is often herd mentality too - especially in the ranking process. Hundreds of analysts doesnt always mean hundreds of independent unbiased opinions, it sometimes means hundred guys all heard the same thing. And they do all hear the same things to some to a lot of degrees.

Or you’re right and he’s a bust. Every year they are right on some and wrong on others. Telesco’s Rd3 record doesn’t sway it towards wrong yet, the kid will have to do it on the field himself.

I have never suggested that Woods will be a bust. I have stated that we wasted draft capital by reaching for a consensus late 4th round player in the middle of the third round and that wasting draft capital is a bad thing as it often means that the wasting team's talent level relative to other teams not wasting draft capital has just been diminished. That is, we are not keeping up with the Joneses when we are guilty of reaching.

I have suggested that part of what Staley emphasized as the basis for drafting Woods, his alleged ball hawking prowess, is overstated. Looking at the interceptions made by Woods, it is clear that most of them were flukish plays on which Woods did not have the receiver covered, but the ball was badly overthrown right to him or ricocheted off of another defender right into his lap. The volume of those kinds of plays is typically not duplicated from season to season. I cited Antonio Cromartie's 2007 season as an example of that concept as Cromartie never produced even half of the number of INTs he produced in his 2007 season in any other season of his career.

While I do agree that there can be investigatory overlap among pundits to a degree, I disagree with the notion that the views of hundreds of pundits forming their own conclusions is somehow some sort of herd mentality. If a GM sees that his view is an outlier versus the consensus, especially where the GM has the player ranked much higher than the consensus, the GM acts at his own peril when he does not consider the possibility that maybe he was the only one that got it wrong instead of being the only one that got it right. It is a huge red flag.

In those cases, a GM should always take the player in the consensus range. By doing so, if the GM is right, he has secured extra value. If he is wrong and the consensus is right, then no value has been lost as the GM gets the player in his correct value range.

[Guest]

In the moment, Chaincrusher lives and breathes, I get it, but it is a false trap because doesn’t consider time and doesn’t consider development and sense of loyalty between player/coach.

I felt similar after 2021 draft. Felt both 3rd’s (Palmer/McKitty) and 4th (Rumph) were reaches. Understood positions (WR/TE/Edge) just not the picks. But slowly they worked into the roster taken more reps, especially Palmer and by end of season, McKitty was blowing up opponents with his blocking. Do I wish it happened faster, heck yeah, but they all look promising just not out of the gate promising.

Could be the real value Staley brings to the table, roster building. Players with a chip on their shoulder, overlooked, hard working who show continuous gains to becoming starting players who actually like each other and play well together. So this is why I’m cutting Staley/Telesco slack this year and do expect big things from JT Woods out of the gate, more in fact than Palmer who was a hit in 2021.

Bad strategy is always bad strategy and it should be avoided whether or not it works out. Also, the notion of it "working out" is misleading.

To the extent that Palmer and McKitty are roster fits, they would have been roster fits in the 4th round (Palmer) and the 5th/6th round (McKitty) where both players likely could have been selected.

I am on record as wanting Spencer Brown and Trey Smith in round 3 last year, both value appropriate selections. Suppose that we took those players in round 3 and took Palmer in round 4 and McKitty in round 5. What is the difference?

Brown is an upgrade over Norton. Smith and Zion are roughly a push. So our OL would have been slightly better and deeper as Norton and Pipkins would be our depth instead of Jaimes being on the back end.

We would not have had Jaimes and would not have had Rumph.

Our first round pick this year could have been used for Jermaine Johnson or George Karlaftis, each of whom would have been an upgrade over Rumph; Breece Hall, who would have been a huge upgrade over Spiller; or Trent McDuffie, who arguably would have been an upgrade over Vato and, at a minimum would have given us great CB depth. (BTW, if we had taken Hall, that would have freed up our 4th pick to take Woods in his value appropriate range and would have allowed us to do the trade up to #75 to take Travis Jones.)

That Palmer and McKitty may be solid NFL players is entirely misleading. At a superficial glance, it may look like the draft pick was fine, but that does not reveal what we lost out on by reaching. The reality is that by not reaching our team could have been better, arguably much better, and that is almost always the case when teams reach. So it is definitely a concern when our team reaches 5 times in a single draft like we did this year, causing the talent lost to keep mounting.

[Guest]

I don't think JT was a reach. I think JT just happened to be valued higher by Staley than the "experts".
Nick Cross was still there at #79. And Cross was a safety that most "experts" had going before #79.
I think Staley was looking for a safety that excelled in coverage. He also wanted a player that can cause turnovers. JT does both of those things well.

Having a starter-quality safety allows Staley to move Derwin up into the "Star" and "Money" positions.
He'll be replacing CHJ in big nickel (Star) alignments... and replacing Kizer in dime (Money) alignments.
You have to get your best players (Derwin) more involved. Drafting JT Woods allows Staley to do that.

I believe the "Big Nickel" will align 4-2-5 and be very stout vs the run (a big problem of ours last year) and vs the pass.
Bosa ^ AJ ^ SJD ^ Mack
Reeder ^ K9
JCJ ^ Derwin ^ ASJ
Woods ^ Adderly

We can easily sub Vato/Callahan for Reader if we need to go dime alignment... and still be fairly stout vs the run.
Bosa ^ CC ^ JT ^ Mack
K9
JCJ ^ Derwin ^ Vato/Callahan ^ ASJ
Woods ^ Adderly

Once you realize the NFL's tendencies, Woods makes a lot of sense.
Eventually, the "experts" will catch up.

A reach is defined as selecting a player significantly earlier than the publicly available consensus ranking of the player, so you seem to be arguing with the definition of the term. Woods was by definition a reach as he carried a consensus ranking of #137 overall and he was taken with the #79 draft pick.

[Guest]

Where exactly is consensus on players in draft?

There isnt even consensus on a Top10.

You could have as many 25 players all be in the top 10 at some point of draft on some list or mock.

Definitely after top 50 players the consensus is even less strong as as to where the player value really should be.
As far as JT Woods, PFN had this to say..."Early on, Woods is best as a deep safety in two-high and single-high looks, but his ability to play at different depths and adapt is extremely valuable. You rarely find defensive backs with ball-hawking and enforcing traits all in one, but that's what Woods provides. He is quickly trending up late in draft season. If he tests as well as expected, he could reasonably crack the top 75 or maybe even the top 50.

NFL.com had him as a 6.19 score which is backup with starter potential. Isn't that what you want from Rd3 a prospect with starter potential.

NFL Draft Scout had projection of Rd 3-4. High projection of Rd 2. Low projection of Rd4.

PFF had him as #154. Which is early Rd5.

Daniel Jeremiah Top 150 board had JT Woods at #67. Early 3rd.

SI final board had Woods at #146 early 5th.

Huddle Report #121 mid 4th.

So if you go with PFN, NFL.com, Daniel Jeremiah, NFL draft Scout boards then you will think JT Woods was a solid pick per the boards.

If you look at Huddle, SI, or PFF, then at #79 was a reach.

But, only two boards (SI and PFF) thought he should be there at #123 in Rd 4. All the others had him ranked high enough to go earlier than mid Rd 4. Some as high as bottom Rd 2.

If Staley wanted Woods. #79 is the place to pick him as the consensus says it's very risky to think he will still be available at #123. Draft day choice needed to be made.

There is no consensus that JT Woods was a reach at #79..

But you know, evidence, it's that thing that really helps supports a good argument. And in this case the evidence is lacking to call JT Woods a reach.

Case dismissed.

The consensus considers hundreds of rankings, not just a few. The consensus had Woods ranked at #137 overall.

Do I really need to explain why a GM does not want to select a player in his early outlier range?

And Zierlein, the author of the nfl.com opinion you cited, projected Woods as a round 4 selection in the very source you cited.

It is idiocy to select a late round 4 ranked player more than a full round early because he might not be there in the middle of round 4. Who cares if Woods is not there when we pick at #123? The world does not cease to exist.

The views of some on this forum are so incredibly inconsistent that it is mind boggling. So, it does not matter at all to some that we ignored an obvious opportunity to add a round 1-2 rated player in Travis Jones by taking aggressive action, but in the unlikely event that Woods, a round 4 ranked player, would not have been available to be taken in round 4, our season would have been lost.

I think Woods is a legitimate NFL player, but he was still a reach as a 3rd round pick and reaches create net talent losses versus other teams that do not reach.