Defense, defense, defense

[blueman]

Clary helped to neutralize two of the most explosive D playmakers playing today. Compared to the rest of the league, he's above the curve.

[Steve]

Vasquez was not much more then serviceable with us, which is why he left. I wasn't necessarily stating that Clary was an ungrade over Vasquez. I agree on the reasons, but Vasquez was only somewhat better then ordinary when he was with us. He was paid for his potential, not his production. And most important, Vasquez didn't make any effort to stay. He signed a new deal before the chargers could really make an offer.

And again, it is not just Clary's play at RG that needs to be factored in, but the added depth at RT. If we had gone out and gotten a cheap replacement at OG, then who would have been our other OT backup. The 3rd OT on the roster in week 1 was Harris, and he was on IR a couple of weeks later. We would had someone off the street playing RT and probably not made the playoffs.

Clary improved a great deal over the course of the season. He is a better then average OG, and is even turning into a decent run blocker.

The big deal is not whether we want to replace Clary or not. We obviously do. The question is when? Do we do it now, or wait and try and build through the draft? And if we replace him now, what other positions will get left untouched? We can go out and sign some guy for low dollar and we can then go out and find someone who could be a backup OT (eating up more cap space), or spend a draft pick or two (OG & OT) and run the risk that they are ready to play when needed, and leave some other holes unfilled, or keep Clary and try and build through the draft and buy time. We have 8-ish draft picks, and holes on OL (multiple), RB, WR, NT, OLB, CB and depth anywhere. We don't have a lot of cap space, and FA is so hit and miss, is it really worth cutting someone now or wait till next season?

[Gwynning_Spirit]

I have no problem with Clary being an OL 6-8 man as long as he's getting paid like one, but it's rough that he'll get 6.25m next year. I disagree that he is better than average at anything; he is a marginal player surviving in the current scheme and the line can get by with him at RG, but if the right opportunity came up, yeah, I'd make the move.

If we get to go back in time and use the hindsight machine to re-sign Vasquez instead of using that money signing Freeney/Cox, given only those choices yeah, I'd do it. I think Vasquez/Fluker would've been monster. But the problem there is the long term health of King Dunlap or answer at LT, and what happens when Hardwick retires. I didn't want Vasquez or any high-priced OG because of tying up a bunch of cash for a while at a position where you might be able to get by with a marginal player like a Clary. Having Vasquez is like putting goldplated rims on a gremlin if you have no security at key positions, but at 6.25m, it's not like Clary's a bargain.

[RobH]

I think it's pretty much a given that Clary will restructure, adding 2-3 more years to the current deal getting down to an average of about 2.5-3 mill per year. Probably a bonus of 3 million. I think he realizes that he's not the greatest RG in football, but he's better than a lot of people give him credit for, and I think he understands that his salary is too high.

I also expect that Rivers and Weddle will be extended to take some of the salary pressure off of this year. I don't think we're in near as bad shape cap-wise than people think.

[sandiego17]

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.)

Disagree with that assessment. An argument can also be made that WR was not stacked and a big need. In 2012 the best WR on the roster was a midseason FA castoff whose career was marred by injuries. Talented, definitely, but flawed from an injury perspective. Floyd still hasn't played regularly and he has been around a decade, Royal been around a while as well and not exactly an ironman. VB was an unknown coming off a big injury and missing a season. Meachum was Meachum. Still need a WR imo, no issue if TT decides to draft one early, even if Floyd is cleared and DX is brought back.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

The assesment that any 3rd round NT in any draft will would have contributed in any meaningfull way in their rookie season is flawd at best!

Name the last rookie NT to srart 16 games as a rookie in a 3/4 and who was drafted after the second round. Otherwise you expecting an outlier. A 100 to one shot.

The ONLY reason Allen was on any pundits board in round 3 was due to injury. Jenkens was a third round prospect so the value argument just doesnt exist if you draft with any consideration for a four year period to recoup your investment.

[Yubaking]

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.

Telesco stated that he takes the BPA unless it is very close as to which player is BPA, then he goes with position of need. And when he said it, I remember him emphasizing that it would have to be VERY close for him not to take the BPA. I have no problem with his approach and the way that it turned out for us.

Again, from the perspective of "at the time of the draft", it was far from clear that Allen was BPA. It depended on who you asked when compared to Jenkins.

Clearly, Telesco had Allen enough above Telesco that we never made it to the position of need consideration in a very close comparison. That is, Telesco must not have thought that it was very close because he completely ignored the position of much greater need at the time. There is no doubt that that is what he did, so the only curiosity I have is with respect to the two players is how he ranked Allen and Jenkins. It doesn't matter now, but it would be interesting to know.

[Yubaking]

The assesment that any 3rd round NT in any draft will would have contributed in any meaningfull way in their rookie season is flawd at best!

Name the last rookie NT to srart 16 games as a rookie in a 3/4 and who was drafted after the second round. Otherwise you expecting an outlier. A 100 to one shot.

The ONLY reason Allen was on any pundits board in round 3 was due to injury. Jenkens was a third round prospect so the value argument just doesnt exist if you draft with any consideration for a four year period to recoup your investment.

Several people had Jenkins as a round 2 prospect and he was even a late round 1 prospect one point a couple of months before the draft. Allen did slide due to injury and his slow time in the 40 (which may have been caused in part by his injury). Regardless of why they were rated as they were, the players were rated as they were, were taken within 7 picks of each other and each received a grade of "A" in post-draft analysis. Both players stood out as strong value in round 3.

Absolutely nobody has said that Jenkins would have made a significant contribution to our team in 2013 had he been on the team, at least not in comparison to Allen's contribution, so nobody is suggesting what you say is flawed thinking. The fact that it may take a couple of years to develop a good NT does not mean that teams should not use an early pick on a NT. If you can have the next Jamal or Dontari Poe, you take him and take him early. Nix looks like that guy in this year's draft. He would be a good value at #25.

[richpjr]

Telesco stated that he takes the BPA unless it is very close as to which player is BPA, then he goes with position of need. And when he said it, I remember him emphasizing that it would have to be VERY close for him not to take the BPA. I have no problem with his approach and the way that it turned out for us.

Again, from the perspective of "at the time of the draft", it was far from clear that Allen was BPA. It depended on who you asked when compared to Jenkins.

Clearly, Telesco had Allen enough above Telesco that we never made it to the position of need consideration in a very close comparison. That is, Telesco must not have thought that it was very close because he completely ignored the position of much greater need at the time. There is no doubt that that is what he did, so the only curiosity I have is with respect to the two players is how he ranked Allen and Jenkins. It doesn't matter now, but it would be interesting to know.

We'll never know how big of a difference it was, but however big the margin - it worked out rather well.

[Fleet]

Speaking of John Jenkins i remember this from last year. Its shocking at how serious some armchair GMs are. lol. For a mock they put together a team of people to make the picks. Wow. lol Not sure it can get any gayer.

http://boltblitz.com/?tag=john-jenkins

[Yubaking]

Disagree with that assessment. An argument can also be made that WR was not stacked and a big need. In 2012 the best WR on the roster was a midseason FA castoff whose career was marred by injuries. Talented, definitely, but flawed from an injury perspective. Floyd still hasn't played regularly and he has been around a decade, Royal been around a while as well and not exactly an ironman. VB was an unknown coming off a big injury and missing a season. Meachum was Meachum. Still need a WR imo, no issue if TT decides to draft one early, even if Floyd is cleared and DX is brought back.

At the time of the draft, we had 2 starters that played very well for us the year before. Prorated over a full season, the FA castoff's year last year was arguably better than Allen's this year and in a much worse offense in which receivers were less likely to succeed given our rampant OL problems and Norv's POS play calling. Floyd was a rock solid #2 WR. Royal and Brown appeared to be solid reserves. It looked like we had to keep Meachem due to cap issues. We were going to keep Goodman as our return guy, who was coming off of being the #4 ranked kickoff returner in the league. A the time of the draft, WR was our deepest position with no other position even being a close second.

It changed due to several unexpected developments, but that's how it was at the time of the draft. And we did not and still do not have a legitimate starting NT on our roster. There is no way WR was the position of greater need at the time of last year's draft. 4 solid WRs versus 1 reserve NT. NT was the position of much greater need at the time of the draft.

I agree that we need a WR now. Brown became a brown out, Alexander now has issues with both knees and Floyd may be forced to retire. So we definitely need at least one more WR, maybe even two. That said, NT is still the position of greater need and Allen is a very legitimate starter at WR.

[Guy Lombardo]

The obsession by many in the Charger world about NT is almost cult like. There is a certain percentage of people, where everything begins and ends there. I think we need a good NT, but the cult like obsession is strange. We are on the second GM since we went to the 34 and if he continues to put NT lower on the list of needs like AJ did after Jamal left, then we will know it is planned. I think Steve is dead on here about NT and our defense basically being a 42 that plays some 34 fronts. I also think with fewer power running teams in the league and heavy passing being so prevalent, that spending a ton of resources at NT isn't worth it as much unless you get a special guy. It's still important, but... Like AJ Smith said when asked why he had not fully replaced Jamal Williams, he said something to the effect of " Know where I can acquire a Jamal Williams type player at this time?". Jamal was special at NT from 2004 to 2007.