2014 Draft Do Over

[Boltergeist]

Telesco really should have made sure we had the first pick in the draft last year like we had in 2004.

[Yubaking]

Yet you compare it to drafts that took years to unfold to downgrade it? You mention 2004 in particular, a ridiculously great draft for the Bolts. But the best players (Rivers, Phillips, Turner) in that draft weren't starters in year 1. Granted, Hardwick did start. If you limit the analysis to what you state above, the Bolts got as much or more production in the first year of the draft in 2013.

SD17, with the acquisition of Rivers, the 2004 draft beat the 2013 draft in its entirety. The other 4 Pro Bowlers and two starters just makes the beating even worse. You can have the whole career of every player taken this year by us to check it out if you want. It won't make a bit of difference.

[sandiego17]

SD17, with the acquisition of Rivers, the 2004 draft beat the 2013 draft in its entirety. The other 4 Pro Bowlers and two starters just makes the beating even worse. You can have the whole career of every player taken this year by us to check it out if you want. It won't make a bit of difference.

I agree in regards to rivers, but Telesco already has Rivers. You still grade 1 draft based on one year and the other based on a career. 2013 draft had a bigger impact than 2004 year 1.

[TTK]

Totally unfair to grade the 2013 draft after one season and compare it to the 2004 draft, where you're basing it off of their entire careers.

If you compare the 2013 draft to the 2004 draft after one season, they probably grade out fairly similar. Also, you have to take into consideration that you're comparing a draft with the #1 overall pick to a draft with the 11th pick.

[MakoShark]

For frame of reference purposes, I think our 2004 draft should be used as the gold standard. (I think the 1975 draft was a great one too and our 2005 draft could be argued to be a silver standard.) That draft produced Rivers, Olshansky, Hardwick, Kaeding, Phillips, Turner, Olivea and also produced as UDFAs Floyd and Welker. That draft also secured us an extra first round pick in the 2005 which turned into Merriman. That's 5 Pro Bowl players and two other starters from one draft, plus a starter and another Pro Bowl player from the UDFAs.

While our draft in 2013 was solid, it was not remotely close to being anywhere near the ballpark of our 2004 draft.

Fluker was a good #1 pick. Allen was a steal in round 3. However, Telesco erred when he traded a 4th plus our second to move up 7 spots when 4 comparable ILBs were all on the board and we only had to wait 7 picks for one of them to come to us. None of the other ILBs were taken before pick #45. Arizona was likely taking Minter all along as they preferred LSU players (Peterson, Mathieu and Minter). They scammed us on the way to having arguably the best draft in the whole league.

Where losing our 4th round pick really hurt was in that it cost us valuable draft ammunition that could have been used as part of a trade back in scenario to get John Jenkins at pick #82 in the third round as the Saints did. We didn't have two 4th round picks as the Saints did to get Jenkins, so we would have had to have traded our #3 from 2014 plus our #4 from 2013 to get Jenkins, but then we would not be having any NT issues going forward as our NT of the future would be in already in place.

And even if we didn't do that move to get Jenkins, we have now all seen that you can get a player like Ladarius Green in the 4th round. We lost that chance because Telesco became anxious as our pick in round two approached and threw away our 4th round pick to trade up and get Te'o when it is unlikely that anyone was coming for him before our pick at #45.

Our draft has to be graded on the whole in that context. The value gained in round 3 with Allen is partially offset by the screw up that led to the lost value in round 4. We may yet gain value from our round 5 pick, but that has yet to be determined.

As a result, I think our draft last year was solid and maybe above average, but it does not appear to be a historically great draft by any stretch of the imagination when compared to the historically great drafts that we have had.

I have to agree with most of your post Yuba (reminds me of the old Yuba), especially the parts regarding the trade up for Te'o. Its easy to just look at this draft and say "3 quality starters in his first 3 picks, Jackpot!" but I think thats a little simplistic. We had a depleted roster, so regardless of who those picks were, they were going to get a shot. Turned out they actually are quality players. As far as Te'o, and this isn't meant as a judgement on his performance, I said then and I still feel now that he would have been there without us making a move. I do think Telesco got anxious and I hated losing that 4th round pick. I'm not sure I would have used it any trade back scenario like you suggest, but I would have liked to see what kind of talent we could have drafted just by sitting still and taking our pick. Even if it was only a good depth guy I would have preferred that to the trade TT made. So, with that said, I agree that the value gained in round 3 is a little offset.

I think your final assessment is a little low. Maybe this wasn't a "historical" draft, but it was far better than average. I would still consider it a great draft. It filled huge needs, there is value gained, TT probably got the steal of entire draft, 2 of his 3 picks were ROY considerations all year and he found a

[MakoShark]

Three solid starters with first 4 picks Telesco held. Most of the time, with hindsight anyone anywhere can do better. Please don't try to claim it isn't hindsight, it is. You may have not liked the Teo pick immediately, but you also absolutely slammed the Allen pick immediately...like I said, with hindsight anyone can do better. I do find it ridiculous to claim Telesco erred or was scammed. He had a terrific first year, putting a roster together that's good enough to win in the playoffs at the same time as dumping guys like Gaither and Meachum. Hopefully he errs and is scammed again this draft and offseason, might result in a Superbowl.

From the title, I thought the whole point of the thread was hindsight. What anyone's opinion was at the time of the draft is irrelevent within the context of this thread. This is a great big "if we could do it over, knowing what we know now" hypothetical. We slammed Yuba for hijacking threads before, but in this one he's right on target. Maybe, its fair to critique the comparison of this draft to others, but its not entirely out of context, IMO. I think its fair to compare the first year contributions of past draft classes to this one and, of course, as time goes on the hypotheticals presented here are subject to change.

[SDFan]

2 relevant points overlooked here:

1. Te'o was near universally rated a 1st round talent all year before the girlfriend incident and bad final game.
2. Steve Williams was drawing rave reviews in camps before being lost to injury.

So in reality, we got a 1st round ILB in the 2nd - who cares we gave up a 4th to move up a couple spots. It was a great value pick!
Had Williams not been lost he likley would have been the "starting" NB (they already commited to Gilchrist @ SS) and played a LOT of downs.

any way you slice it, this was a really strong 1st draft by Telesco and JohnBoy.

[Steve]

Who cares about a historically great draft? It is the sustained performance that counts. If you don't have a series of good drafts, then 1 "historical" really doesn't matter.

In truth, since Teo and Fluker are only fair starters at this point, the real issue will be how well they and the rest of the draft class develop. It is rare for a team to get as much production from a rookie class as we did this year. But the year we got all the rookie FA help, we had almost nothing to show for it short term. Gates and Hardwick were really the only rookies who played that much, and outside of SD, no one knew who Gates was.So, give it a year or two, we will really find out what our draft grade is. It looks good so far, but it could be amazing.

[sandiego17]

From the title, I thought the whole point of the thread was hindsight. What anyone's opinion was at the time of the draft is irrelevent within the context of this thread. This is a great big "if we could do it over, knowing what we know now" hypothetical. We slammed Yuba for hijacking threads before, but in this one he's right on target. Maybe, its fair to critique the comparison of this draft to others, but its not entirely out of context, IMO. I think its fair to compare the first year contributions of past draft classes to this one and, of course, as time goes on the hypotheticals presented here are subject to change.

I agree in general with what you are saying (not the easy to grab three starters part, but that's besides the point). It is hindsight, of course that's the point, but to claim Telesco was scammed is a bit ridiculous. If Telesco could do it over, I doubt he changes much, he ended up with two guys who you could argue are top-10 (even top-5) rookie performers and the second round pick played with a broken foot. I don't think its fair to compare one year of a draft vs. a draft that's a decade old, that isn't relevant at this point. Also, the team had the first pick in that draft, traded down and acquired more picks. Telesco wasn't in a position to trade down, but he also already had Rivers. Not ripping Yuba at all, just disagree that Telesco was scammed and with the comparison criteria.

[Yubaking]

Who cares about a historically great draft? It is the sustained performance that counts. If you don't have a series of good drafts, then 1 "historical" really doesn't matter.

In truth, since Teo and Fluker are only fair starters at this point, the real issue will be how well they and the rest of the draft class develop. It is rare for a team to get as much production from a rookie class as we did this year. But the year we got all the rookie FA help, we had almost nothing to show for it short term. Gates and Hardwick were really the only rookies who played that much, and outside of SD, no one knew who Gates was.So, give it a year or two, we will really find out what our draft grade is. It looks good so far, but it could be amazing.

If you are having a discussion about whether or not a draft is good or great, it makes sense to compare it to other drafts. That's why the historically great draft matters in the context of this discussion. It is useful as a tool by which to rate the 2013 draft (with the clear understanding that our rating is likely to change as the players continue to develop).

To me, our draft this year was solid, even good in the way that our 2006 and 2012 drafts were. The 2006 draft yielded two Pro Bowl players (Cromartie and McNeill) and two additional starters (Dobbins and Clary). The 2012 draft yielded Ingram, Reyes, Green and Troutman (and Taylor has potential if he can ever get healthy enough to see the field).

I think our 2004 draft, what I call the gold standard, was much better than our 2013 draft. Our 2005 draft was some better than the 2013 draft (Merriman, Castillo, Jackson, Sproles).

If our players develop very well, they could get close to the 2005 draft, which is very good (what I refer to as the silver standard). I do not see any way for the 2013 draft class to even remotely approach the 2004 draft's results, however.

I agree with your view that our draft looks good so far and can even look better as the players develop. You used the word "amazing", I used the words "very good".

[Boltergeist]

If you are having a discussion about whether or not a draft is good or great, it makes sense to compare it to other drafts.

Several posters have pointed out that we had the first pick in the draft in 2004. We parlayed that pick into multiple picks in 2004 and 2005. Of course the net results are going to be better. I think when comparing drafts, you have to consider what a GM does with the picks he has.

[sandiego17]

I still think you are making invalid comparisons. Some drafts just have better talent available. You've already stated that regardless of how great any of the players are, it cannot top the 2004 draft because of Rivers. That's fine, but I do think the 2013 draft needs to be considered in that context. I think that Telesco did better than very good based on the talent that was available. Even if he drafted Richardson, Allen, Fluker, Warford and Bernard, you would give the nod to 2004, based on Rivers, correct? That's a tough curve man.