Defense, defense, defense

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

The absurdity is using words like "failure" in the discussion about not drafting Jenkins. It would be absurd even if they didn't draft Allen.

The argument that the team needs a NT more than a WR is worthwhile, IMO. I do think that WR is still pretty big need, all the quality guys have an injury history (some major like Floyd and DX, who is a FA anyway), and that includes Allen. The team needs both, at least another capable Lissemore type.

I'd prefer we pursue the best players and give less weight to position. I'd like to have a better NT. And a better CB (or two). Some LBs. A better safety. A couple more OL's. Another RB. We have a lot of needs. And last year we had even more. I actually don't think there was much point in getting so specific on position. Allen looked like a value pick. He's performed very well. Certainly far, far better than the head of the peanut gallery was running his mouth about in preseason and pre-ban.

[sandiego17]

I'd prefer we pursue the best players and give less weight to position. I'd like to have a better NT. And a better CB (or two). Some LBs. A better safety. A couple more OL's. Another RB. We have a lot of needs. And last year we had even more. I actually don't think there was much point in getting so specific on position. Allen looked like a value pick. He's performed very well. Certainly far, far better than the head of the peanut gallery was running his mouth about in preseason and pre-ban.

Totally agree, BPA. I'd give very little weight to position outside QB and special teams, especially early in the draft.

[TTK]

Telesco's first draft has looked pretty good so far so I don't understand the need to try to criticize it.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Telesco's first draft has looked pretty good so far so I don't understand the need to try to criticize it.

But just think....it could have and should have been better. If he'd just listened to the experts.

[Steve]

Many people commented on Allen's slow 40 time, which, in retrospect, was very likely related to his knee problems at least to some degree. There is ZERO doubt that his comparatively slow time in the 40 hurt his draft stock. Months before the draft, he was considered as a likely mid first round pick (I saw him as high as #12 overall at one point) and then he dropped all the way down to being a third round pick.

I understand that a WR's time in the 40 is not the only issue that matters, but it does matter. Greater speed helps WRs get open deep and contributes to a WR's ability to get separation because the spectre of a deep route has to be honored more so than with a slower receiver.

If it did not matter what time a WR ran in the 40 at all, they would not have players run the 40 at the Combine.

This time of year people confuse ACTUAL speed vs using a statistic (40 time) as a proxy for that. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Players need to be fast, no one is denying that, although there is a big difference between speed and quickness and many people confuse those two qualities.

Allen had good quickness and pretty good speed on the field. His junior year, he made a lot of big plays on all kinds of situations. His senior year he was not nearly as good as he had been, but that was a function of the knee injury. I think a big part of it was scouts/GM's being gutless in terms of evaluating players. They are willing to give a pass to pro players, but not do it for college players. But everyone knows that it takes time to get the explosiveness back, often a year or more. But hiding behind a 40 time is a pretty sorry excuse for not actually scouting a guy, or at least not believing what you see.

But as far as Allen goes, there was no question we should have taken Allen and ignore the NT. NT is just not that important a position and we need to get better at WR. A year later, where would we have been without Allen, and we are in OK shape at NT. Obviously, like any position, we would like to upgrade OK, but it is simply not worth a major investment to sign backup DL either as a FA or high draft pick.

[Steve]

I'd prefer we pursue the best players and give less weight to position. I'd like to have a better NT. And a better CB (or two). Some LBs. A better safety. A couple more OL's. Another RB. We have a lot of needs. And last year we had even more. I actually don't think there was much point in getting so specific on position. Allen looked like a value pick. He's performed very well. Certainly far, far better than the head of the peanut gallery was running his mouth about in preseason and pre-ban.

I think prioritizing positions is fine, provided you are smart about it. Some positions are more important then others, so you have to reflect that. Last year, NT was way, way down on the list because we needed to find out about Cam. This year, we have Lissemore and Geathers (and maybe Cam), plus, by final cutdowns, there will probably be some dregs floating about on the street. But we really needed help at other spots. We had to get an ILB and we got Teo. We had to get some help on OL, so we got Fluker. But those guys had good grades and fit with those picks, so they are fine. We just need to keep doing that. But if there is no pass rushing OLB with the right grade this year, let it go. Look later on, or maybe even a trade. But you can't force a good draft.

The catch is that you can't force it. I think the way you handle it is to go into the draft, let the big board do the talking. When it is time to pick, you look at the board and see if there are players right around the top, that fit a need. IF they are at the top, fine, pick them. If they are down a bit, either trade down, or take the guys who are the better value. I don't really understand how Allen slipped into the late 2nd round, let alone the 3rd. We HAD to take him, because you simply don't get guys with his combination of speed, quickness and athletic ability in the 3rd round.

[Panama]

I agree with what you have said. I think a better statement would be that we missed an opportunity to get a NT that could have been our NT of the future by not taking Jenkins.

Unfortunately, at least one poster is not distinguishing between what things looked like at the time of the draft and what they look like now.

From an "at the time of the draft" standpoint, why we didn't take the top NT on the board who may have been the BPA at the time and took a WR instead is a very fair question. At the time we were stacked at WR (arguably the position of least need) and did not have a good NT. (We still do not.)

It very easily could have turned out that none of Alexander, Floyd and Royal had significant injuries that cost them lots of time and/or regular practice reps. It very easily could have turned out that Brown became the player that we all hoped he would be before his ankle injury. Had those things happened, Allen would have been nothing more than another name on a roster with potential by the end of this season (maybe kind of like Brown was a couple of years ago before his injury).

Naturally, that didn't happen, but there was no way that Telesco, you, me or anyone else could have known that at the time. So the question from an "at the time of the draft" perspective is not silly at all. It is a very fair question.

Of course, when the injuries happened and Allen got his chance, he was outstanding. So, in retrospect it worked out perfectly. As I said, I have no complaints (save maybe the possibility that I didn't even consider myself at the time of the draft of trading back in to get Jenkins, which I do not fault Telesco at all for not doing because I do not like to trade up as a general proposition).

I definitely agree with you that we could benefit from further additions at both positions. I like Benjamin, but think he may not be worth the #25 pick. He looks like he would be a heck of a complement to Allen. If we landed a player or two like him, we may be able to get away from Alexander, who I really like, but have come to accept is a major injury risk. Our NT position is just a mess right now. Lissemore is a reserve NT, nothing more. We do not have a legitimate starting NT.

It's very simple: At the time of the draft, Allen was the BPA, and TT is on record as being a "draft BPA" guy, not a "draft by need" guy. That, IMO, is the correct approach.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

I think prioritizing positions is fine, provided you are smart about it. Some positions are more important then others, so you have to reflect that. Last year, NT was way, way down on the list because we needed to find out about Cam. This year, we have Lissemore and Geathers (and maybe Cam), plus, by final cutdowns, there will probably be some dregs floating about on the street. But we really needed help at other spots. We had to get an ILB and we got Teo. We had to get some help on OL, so we got Fluker. But those guys had good grades and fit with those picks, so they are fine. We just need to keep doing that. But if there is no pass rushing OLB with the right grade this year, let it go. Look later on, or maybe even a trade. But you can't force a good draft.

The catch is that you can't force it. I think the way you handle it is to go into the draft, let the big board do the talking. When it is time to pick, you look at the board and see if there are players right around the top, that fit a need. IF they are at the top, fine, pick them. If they are down a bit, either trade down, or take the guys who are the better value. I don't really understand how Allen slipped into the late 2nd round, let alone the 3rd. We HAD to take him, because you simply don't get guys with his combination of speed, quickness and athletic ability in the 3rd round.

I don't disagree with this. I'm not a strict BPA person. I think you go in to drafts planning to take the best players but you should absolutely be filling needs. My point was that last year we had so many needs that it didn't make sense to hone in too much on one position to the exclusion of too many others. Let's be honest. We needed to fill a lot of holes. We still do. And you're right. If Allen is still sitting there in the third, you absolutely have to take him. Based on how things went last year, we passed on him in the second. I imagine Allen was at least in the consideration set there. When he's still sitting there in the third, you take him and just feel really fortunate. So it's kind of surprising that anyone is arguing that we should have looked at it differently, meaning prioritize position and draftniks' rankings over the talent that was staring us in the face. To me it's kind of an academic argument. "Given the parity in draftniks' rankings and our need at a specific position (that I prioritize extremely highly--and perhaps differently than our GM or others in the NFL), I believe that we clearly should have taken a NT that didn't do much his first year over a guy that won several ROY honors." I mean you can always debate something. But it doesn't mean you should. Just a little nitpicky if you ask me.

[thelightningwill]

Best player available is always the best call.
Unless it's something ridiculous like a kicker or a long snapper.
If we want to fill immediate needs, that should be done with veteran players.
The draft should be to make sure our team is at its best years from now. And who knows what positions we'll need to improve at that point?

This year, if the best player available plays tight end, I don't want us to draft some so-so lineman. Get the best player.

[Steve]

I had no idea that Allen was going to be so productive this year. On the old board, I felt like he was the kind of guy who was probably going to come on strong late in the season. So, clearly, I underestimated him. But even with that, I still thought he was an outstanding pick. Guy with a 1st round grade in the 3rd, at a spot where we really needed some help. I am a strong believer in getting several different types of guys at any given position. I didn't think having Floyd and DX as WR is as good a mix as having a different body build/skill set in another player. So, adding Allen would still have been a great move had both Floyd and DX been healthy, and even if Allen hadn't been rookie of the year.

Again, I am not against taking another player somewhat higher if they are at an area of need, but the NT thing seems silly to me, as it was not an area of need then, and is only a moderate need now.

You just have to be careful to not take best available thing too literally. For example, one of the better TE in this years draft is the pass catching TE from TTU. I am OK with drafting another TE, but he is exactly the same type of guy that we already have in Green and Gates. Tall, fast, WR type who can potentially be a great receiver. But not that another one would be useful down the road, but how many pass catching TE can we fit on one roster? If we can get more of a Jason Witten type, who is more of an inline guy (blocker and classic thick build), or Jimmy Kleinsasser type of blocker, then it is great, because they compliment each other. But we normally only carry 3 TE, and one of them has to do the heavy inline blocking or we cannot run jumbo packages in the goalline. You just have to watch it a little.

And when building a team, remember the delta's. If you can take a position that is a real weakness, and turn it into a strength, the whole team just got a whole lot better in a single move. And in some cases two. WE add Fluker, Clary moves inside, and we improved two spots with 1 pick. Where if you go out and look for a the best player, you run the risk of stocking up at a position, and potentially adding more players then you can carry on a single roster, which then turns into waste if you are just cutting them, or losing them off the practice squad.

[sandiego17]

Is DX a UFA or an RFA?

UFA

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-diego-chargers/danario-alexander/

[Steve]

I didn't think having Floyd and DX as WR is as good a mix as having players who can actually stay on the field.

I don't think replacing Vasquez with Clary was an upgrade. Sometimes you can make two points of weakness not detrimental, and that's good enough. I hope Fluker stays at RT and becomes a dominant one. I liked what Dunlap did as well, but his long term health scares me enough that I wouldn't be against TT taking another OT in RD1.

Except that Vasquez was gone long before the draft. And which Vasquez, the inconsistent OG who would regularly break down or block the wrong guy, or the all pro for Denver? Our Vasquez got Rivers knocked around pretty good, even if Den's Vasquez didn't get Manning hit very often.