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

[Guest]

I think Woods is a fine value pick.

The problem with so many S evaluations is how people evaluate skills of S.

Woods is a really poor fit for a Gus Bradley type of D. Even as a single high S. He doesn't fit. He really can't play SS in the Bradley D, where the SS is an extra LB type, who comes down and spends all the time in the box, where he is basically an extra LB. Woods is not a defender who can do much in the box. Guys who did well in Bradley's D are "static" zone guys, guys who wait in their area and let the defenders run to them. Woods is not that kind of guy, so for a lot of those type of D, he is a terrible pick. Classic cover 2 type D, he is a bad fit there too.

Woods is a Robber. Robber is the term for a deep S who lines up deep, then comes down into the low hole (deep in the underneath middle of the two hook zones) or turns and runs with the slot. Woods IS good at that. He is a deep alignment guy who needs to keep his hips open, reads the slots and crossing WR, TE and RB coming out of the backfield. He can come down into the slot, or stay deep and run with WR across the formation. He is a matchup zone guy that fits the split secondary much better than a classic 2 deep, Tampa 2 S.

You can't mix them and think most guys will be good at both.

he still needs to get more physical and gain confidence and tackle better. Tackling is a skill that improves dramatically for most players if they practice it a lot. They don't have to do live tackling all the time, that is how players get injured in practice. But you can work on fits, work on wrapping up, work on elements of tackling, and do it every single day. Even for just a few minutes, a day is a big help.

I know people love a consensus of the draft guru's, but I think that is mostly because all the guys are looking and TALKING to the same sources. The consensus comes from all the mock draft types finally getting around to talking to the same people, and that takes time for guys who are going hither and yonder working guys out. Watch the stuff on the internet and make up your own minds.

But I don't think there is any consensus among NFL teams. There is too much scheme diversity and too many different opinions in a team for that to happen. I think it is far more likely Kiper probably ends up talking to scouts, who, even if they don't work for the Ravens, have similar views philosophically, and are very traditional in their view of what players should look and play.

Consensus big boards are comprised of analyses from hundreds of sources. If your suggestion is that consensus big boards are not really consensus big boards, we will have to agree to disagree.

Also, being a fit with a particular team does not make a player more valuable overall. It just makes the player properly selectable by the team where there is a fit. Woods' value based on consensus ranking was #137 overall. He does not suddenly become more valuable because he fits what we do. He just becomes a player we should consider in his proper value range, which is nowhere close to 3/79.

Even worse, Woods had a measurables doppleganger in the draft in Tycen Anderson, who is the same height and speed, but weighs 14 pounds more (kind of like a more physical and better tackling version of Woods), has hands that are almost 2 inches bigger and arms that are 5/8 of an inch bigger. Staley emphasized Woods' height, speed and length in his discussion of him. Anderson was drafted at 5/166 by the Bengals. Multiple sources had these players rated closely and the consensus big board had these players rated within draft 22 slots of each other. In our own forum mock draft, Woods was taken at 5/149 and Anderson was taken at 5/167 (by me drafting for DAL).

And, of course, your discussion of Woods' scheme limitations goes a long way toward explaining why Woods likely would have been on the board for us at 4/123 if we wanted to go in that direction.

[Scott Green]

Consensus big boards are comprised of analyses from hundreds of sources. If your suggestion is that consensus big boards are not really consensus big boards, we will have to agree to disagree.

Also, being a fit with a particular team does not make a player more valuable overall. It just makes the player properly selectable by the team where there is a fit. Woods' value based on consensus ranking was #137 overall. He does not suddenly become more valuable because he fits what we do. He just becomes a player we should consider in his proper value range, which is nowhere close to 3/79.

Even worse, Woods had a measurables doppleganger in the draft in Tycen Anderson, who is the same height and speed, but weighs 14 pounds more (kind of like a more physical and better tackling version of Woods), has hands that are almost 2 inches bigger and arms that are 5/8 of an inch bigger. Staley emphasized Woods' height, speed and length in his discussion of him. Anderson was drafted at 5/166 by the Bengals. Multiple sources had these players rated closely and the consensus big board had these players rated within draft 22 slots of each other. In our own forum mock draft, Woods was taken at 5/149 and Anderson was taken at 5/167 (by me drafting for DAL).

And, of course, your discussion of Woods' scheme limitations goes a long way toward explaining why Woods likely would have been on the board for us at 4/123 if we wanted to go in that direction.

I think his point with Woods is like with Richard Sherman in the legion of boom. Sherman is highly intelligent but not the fastest dude. Sherman in zone was a nightmare for Qbs because he could read and react. Man to man he was nothing special. In zone hes an all pro difference maker. Woods playing in the Big 12 where every team is spread and bombs away means they know exactly what hes good at. He lead the nation in turnovers and he is highly intelligent. 4.3 fortys dont grow on trees either. Hes there because he fits Staleys system and if Adderly isn't resigned his replacement is in the building. Mike got drafted when Keenan kept getting hurt and now, best of both. Palmer was there if Mike left or if Keenan leaves. Long term replacement already in house.


.

[Guest]

I think his point with Woods is like with Richard Sherman in the legion of boom. Sherman is highly intelligent but not the fastest dude. Sherman in zone was a nightmare for Qbs because he could read and react. Man to man he was nothing special. In zone hes an all pro difference maker. Woods playing in the Big 12 where every team is spread and bombs away means they know exactly what hes good at. He lead the nation in turnovers and he is highly intelligent. 4.3 fortys dont grow on trees either. Hes there because he fits Staleys system and if Adderly isn't resigned his replacement is in the building. Mike got drafted when Keenan kept getting hurt and now, best of both. Palmer was there if Mike left or if Keenan leaves. Long term replacement already in house.


.

Woods does not seem like the ball hawk that you and Staley are making him out to be. If you look at the turnovers credited to him, one of them was a great turnover that he created, so full credit there. The rest were just Woods being "Johnny on the spot".

The INT turnovers were almost all on bad throws that went right to him or were deflected by a teammate right to him. It was just like Cromartie's 2007 season in that the vast majority of the turnovers were gifts right to him. A turnover pattern like that is typically not duplicated by a DB year after year. For example, after Cromartie had 10 INTs in 2007, he never had more than 4 in any other season of his career.

Woods also had a fumble return TD. But again, he just happened to be standing where the ball was just like Tevaughn Campbell was against CIN last season. Just about any DB that happens to be there gets that TD.

I do not see the Sherman comparison at all. The players seem very different.

Basically, I have had three main problems with our selection of Woods at 3/79:

1. Woods was consensus big board ranked at #137 overall, so we reached to take him.

2. We had a chance to move up 4 spots, secure a pick that the team's original owner was willing to trade and did trade, and not only take a player that was not a reach, but to select a player that was consensus ranked approximately a full round higher than the value of our draft choice.

3. There was a safety with very similar traits as Woods sitting on the board well into the 5th round.

After reading Steve's discussion of Woods, I now have a 4th possible issue:

4. Woods may be a very scheme specific player and only a few teams play the defense that we play, suggesting that there may not have been many takers on Woods. I have not considered this possibility too much before now, but this conclusion does potentially flow out of the points Steve made about the potential defenses that do and do not fit Woods.

[RockyMtnBoltFan]

Interesting “debate” going on for the past week. My 2 cents…
I think it’s fair to say most all of us were surprised by the pick. I was certainly one who had never heard of JT. As the pick neared i found myself hoping for Travis Jones to be the pick. But he wasn’t….and to me that’s fine.

The reality of the draft is that most of these players won’t become meaningful starters. So to me, a consensus big board ranking of 50 vs 150 doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the Chargers believed TJ is the player that could have the biggest impact on this team right now. There are so many variables that might go into TJ as the selection and even why the Chargers might value this player more than others. There’s a better than 50% chance that TJ isn’t ever more than a rotational piece or a serviceable back-up. Same goes for Jones or any other player drafted in the 3rd round. Only time will tell, but I’m going to be on the side of rooting for the kid and hoping the team got it right.

[sonorajim]

JT Woods appears to address one of Staley's 5&10 slots. With top 3 Ss coming off the board in the 1st, 3 more in the 2nd, taking the 8th ranked S in the 3td doesn't seem all that out of line. - Assuming that he brings what Staley is looking for. It's fair to believe Coach thinks that.

[dmac_bolt]

remember Mike Mayock was respected draft pundit

when he became GM the picks became head scratchers.

He should have stuck with the consensus

I think Woods was a reach at 3. He may be a good high FS, and fit Staley’s scheme well. I think it’s also reasonable guess he could have been had in R4. Trippin’ Tom has a thing about Round 3, lets not fight to embrace it. Round 3 is his kooky round.

[21&500]

Woods does not seem like the ball hawk that you and Staley are making him out to be. If you look at the turnovers credited to him, one of them was a great turnover that he created, so full credit there. The rest were just Woods being "Johnny on the spot".

The INT turnovers were almost all on bad throws that went right to him or were deflected by a teammate right to him. It was just like Cromartie's 2007 season in that the vast majority of the turnovers were gifts right to him. A turnover pattern like that is typically not duplicated by a DB year after year. For example, after Cromartie had 10 INTs in 2007, he never had more than 4 in any other season of his career.

Woods also had a fumble return TD. But again, he just happened to be standing where the ball was just like Tevaughn Campbell was against CIN last season. Just about any DB that happens to be there gets that TD.

I do not see the Sherman comparison at all. The players seem very different.

Basically, I have had three main problems with our selection of Woods at 3/79:

1. Woods was consensus big board ranked at #137 overall, so we reached to take him.

2. We had a chance to move up 4 spots, secure a pick that the team's original owner was willing to trade and did trade, and not only take a player that was not a reach, but to select a player that was consensus ranked approximately a full round higher than the value of our draft choice.

3. There was a safety with very similar traits as Woods sitting on the board well into the 5th round.

After reading Steve's discussion of Woods, I now have a 4th possible issue:

4. Woods may be a very scheme specific player and only a few teams play the defense that we play, suggesting that there may not have been many takers on Woods. I have not considered this possibility too much before now, but this conclusion does potentially flow out of the points Steve made about the potential defenses that do and do not fit Woods.

Regarding the turnovers, it's hard to say how much luck was involved because to some degree, players make their own luck with instincts guiding them to the right positions. Even our own mr. Interception can be accused of being lucky, but I tend to think there's more going on.
regarding your criticisms of the selection I think that's all pretty valid but am happy to see it all unfold. I don't mind making criticisms now and hoping to be wrong later so long as it moves us closer to a championship.
I really wanted cameron thomas with our 3rd, he was gone by our 4th.

[sonorajim]

He should have stuck with the consensus

I think Woods was a reach at 3. He may be a good high FS, and fit Staley’s scheme well. I think it’s also reasonable guess he could have been had in R4. Trippin’ Tom has a thing about Round 3, lets not fight to embrace it. Round 3 is his kooky round.

If Staley wanted a decent S, they were going fast. Picks 14, 31, 32, 37, 48, 62 ,79, 96, 97, etc were Safties
Woods was ranked #8 S, we took him 7th.
Last year Stalesco took Palmer in 3rd. Not a lousy precedent, as good or better would be nice.

[AK47]

I think his point with Woods is like with Richard Sherman in the legion of boom. Sherman is highly intelligent but not the fastest dude. Sherman in zone was a nightmare for Qbs because he could read and react. Man to man he was nothing special. In zone hes an all pro difference maker. Woods playing in the Big 12 where every team is spread and bombs away means they know exactly what hes good at. He lead the nation in turnovers and he is highly intelligent. 4.3 fortys dont grow on trees either. Hes there because he fits Staleys system and if Adderly isn't resigned his replacement is in the building. Mike got drafted when Keenan kept getting hurt and now, best of both. Palmer was there if Mike left or if Keenan leaves. Long term replacement already in house.


.

4.3x speed, size, and with ball skills. Tricky combination to find.

[equivocation]

4.3x speed, size, and with ball skills. Tricky combination to find.

Most guys with that fall due lack of awareness and diagnosis. Woods seems good in those areas.

[AK47]

Most guys with that fall due lack of awareness and diagnosis. Woods seems good in those areas.

Good point. Hey you guys noticed common theme with all these DB pickups? Ball Skills. So when our defensive front alters ball trajectory.........man its like a group of sharks back there that having legit ball skills.

[21&500]

Good point. Hey you guys noticed common theme with all these DB pickups? Ball Skills. So when our defensive front alters ball trajectory.........man its like a group of sharks back there that having legit ball skills.

Yes. A legitimate theme, not by coincidence.
Herbert will have a significantly greater number of drives this season.