Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Draft Needs

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Diego Chargers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Maverick41


Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 19564
Location: RIP to My Boy, B2TB (Nik Evans)
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:48 pm    Post subject: Draft Needs Reply with quote

Howdy.

In the process of preparing my mock drafts for the next six weeks. What would you say are the three or four most pressing needs for your team ranked in order of most to least?

Thanks!
_________________

bossvegas wrote:
to be fair some people just don't like traffic signs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Highboltage55


Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Posts: 171
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) Safety
2) Offensive Tackle
3) D-Line/EDGE
4) CB

Even though I listed Safety and Offensive Tackle above D-Line/Edge, it doesn't mean that we necessarily will go that route first. Our FO doesn't seem to value the Safety position as much come Draft Day, and this year's crop of Offensive Tackles isn't as good as previous years (talent wise).

Our current starting Safeties are Dwight Lowery (FS) and Jahleel Addae (SS, just re-signed to a lucrative contract). Addae is still young and has the potential to continue growing while Lowery is a journeyman/stop-gap player. I would expect the Bolts Brass to look at someone like Jamal Adams, Malik Hooker, Budda Baker or possibly Desmond King to fill the FS role within the first two rounds potentially.

Although we just signed Russell Okung and cut King Dunlap, Offensive Tackle is still a high priority. In a division where Khalil Mack, Von Miller, Justin Houston, and other great pass rushers are played against we can use another high quality OT to "groom". Barksdale was resigned last year and seemed to regress, hopefully it was an "off" year. Okung's deal is likely a two-year deal, so the team could move on in the short future. If someone like Garrett Bolles, Cam Robinson, or Forrest Lamp (likely an OG) were available at the top of the second I could see the Chargers pulling the trigger. Taylor Moton is another guy I personally like.

Our D-Line is pretty "stacked" right now (both talent AND depth), but we could still use more talent. Ingram was franchised and could easily walk next year (depends on if he plays the LEO or SAM), leading us to draft his replacement (i.e. TJ Watt?). Jerry Attaouchu was in the coaches doghouse last year, but looks to be a great "fit" for the LEO position (wide 9 DE). Corey Liuget hasn't played up to his fat contract extension and could be a cap casualty or restructure in the near future. Brandon Mebane, while solid as a Nose Tackle, is up their in age although the Chargers seem to like Damion Square as depth. Overall we could easily lose a few of these guys and it would be wise to "stock" more talent along the D-Line (i.e. Malik McDowell, Soloman Thomas possibly, Jonathan Allen if he fell).

We are solid at Corner currently with Verrett (oft injured) and Casey Heyward as our starters. I could see us looking for a potential starter at Nickel, if we decide to not sign someone via FA. We had some undrafted guys last year who actually played surprisingly well-but this Corner class is deep and we should be able to find someone from Rounds 2-4 to fill that need.

Otherwise the Chargers are pretty good in terms of Roster construction. Although I love Mahomes, I doubt the Chargers would draft him just to sit behind Rivers a few years and then have his contract expire (a la Osweiler in Denver). Nose Tackle isn't a premium position, but I do like Jaleel Johnson and Elijah Qualls as potential replacements for Mebane down the road (although I expect Johnson to be off the board in Round 2-3). We are set at inside linebacker. We don't IMO need an early pick on a wide receiver, although I do like JuJu Smith Schuster potentially in the third.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The LBC


Global Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 34460
Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Draft Needs Reply with quote

Maverick41 wrote:
Howdy.

In the process of preparing my mock drafts for the next six weeks. What would you say are the three or four most pressing needs for your team ranked in order of most to least?

Thanks!

Depends... do you want your mock to closely mirror realism or do you just want needs so that you can plug in guys and express your opinion on best fits to fill needs and improve teams?

Because FS (single-high safety, specifically) can be very clearly argued as a pressing need, but the Chargers' brass has shown time and time again that they really don't value the safety position highly. Also, the front office has a very predictable trend of not drafting for a current need in the 2nd round but rather drafting for an anticipated need (a position where a current starter is currently entering the last year of their contract and not expected to be brought back).

I'll just kind of throw the stuff up against the wall and let you decide where it sticks:

- FS (specifically a single-high/centerfielder type with the versatility to come down and cover slot receivers as needed - the prototype for the scheme is obviously Earl Thomas, realistically a George Iloka type could likely fit fine)

- CB (the starters are set, but Verrett's healthy hasn't been the cleanest and Brandon Flowers was released; plus, none of the worthwhile - I'm refusing to count Craig Mager - CB's on the roster really fit the longer mold that Bradley has typically liked in his scheme)

- EDGE (if Melvin Ingram signs a long-term deal this becomes less of a need, but Melvin INgram has no business getting paid the kind of money he's asking for when he's the King of Almost-There; i.e. "pressures" =/= sacks; moreover, he's really not a speed-to-power guy which is the type that tends to flourish best in the LEO role of this scheme)

- OT (specifically LOT of the future; it's probably optimistic to expect Okung to not miss time for injury and his deal is effectively a 2-year one. I wouldn't see this as a position they'd reach to fill - particularly since the preferred OT's in Kromer's blocking scheme appear to be more long-and-girthy than the athletic-OT prototype)

- WR (less of a need, I think, in the minds of the fans than likely the mind of the FO; I could genuinely see this front office using #7 on a WR because they appear to have blamed the offense for losing them games last season - and probably rightfully-so)

- QBotF (less-pressed to take this year with Kellen Clemens having been brought back on a 1-year deal - and let's be realistic, no Day 2 or 3 QB is likely to beat out Clemens... even as poor as he is on the field, for the QB2 spot this year. Contract-wise it doesn't make sense to try to draft a groom-to-be-successor type this year either, but that doesn't mean this FO won't try)

- DT (kind of open all across the board and versatility would be a big selling point. Ideally, if he doesn't perform up to snuff in the new scheme, I think the club will want to cut ties with Corey Liuget and his contract, so ability to play the 3T has selling points. Brandon Mebane has minimal time left on his contract and Damion Square may be a better plug for Liuget at the 3-Tech than for Mebane at the 0-/1-Tech.)

- RB (I wouldn't say a straight "Danny Woodhead replacement" but I don't think anyone feels comfortable with Andre Williams as an RB who could be seeing any kind of regular snaps and Kenneth Farrow can certainly be upgraded on as a spell to Melvin Gordon)

- Returner (This is just something to consider that could add value to a particular guy - like splitting hairs of one over another - in consideration for one of those positions above. There's been a demonstrated effort to try and improve on being more dynamic in the return game by the club - and thus far Travis Benjamin hasn't done it, so it wouldn't surprise if that's a factor in a guy at one of the more-immediately-depth positions like CB/RB/WR gets the nod.)
_________________

MathMan wrote:
I think I'm obfuscating all over the place!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neutral


Joined: 08 Mar 2013
Posts: 1932
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Draft Needs Reply with quote

I'm going in a different direction with our #1 need.

We don't have a starter at RG. If you've got Spencer Pulley penciled in there, then we'll need a LG when Orlando Franklin gets injured a couple games into the season and never regains his early-season form... again. You want to blame the offense for failing us last year? That's fine, but at least target the weakest link: the offensive line.

The LBC wrote:
- WR (less of a need, I think, in the minds of the fans than likely the mind of the FO; I could genuinely see this front office using #7 on a WR because they appear to have blamed the offense for losing them games last season - and probably rightfully-so)


Then what's the strategy when Williams or Benjamin demand a trade?

I'd be shocked if a team that has drafted for need each of the past four years made a luxury pick. I'm not going to argue that we need WR depth. It was painfully obvious that Rivers didn't trust Griff Whalen, or Isaiah Burse, or any of the other #5/#6 WRs this season. But, to address that with the 7th overall pick is crazy.

If they don't like Hooker, Adams, or simply the value of a safety so high in the draft, I'd think CB is the most likely choices. Like you said, our CBs aren't fits for what Bradley likes, and Verrett has yet to play a full 16 games. None of the depth players behind them have shown that they deserve more playing time either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The LBC


Global Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 34460
Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:31 am    Post subject: Re: Draft Needs Reply with quote

Neutral wrote:
I'm going in a different direction with our #1 need.

We don't have a starter at RG. If you've got Spencer Pulley penciled in there, then we'll need a LG when Orlando Franklin gets injured a couple games into the season and never regains his early-season form... again. You want to blame the offense for failing us last year? That's fine, but at least target the weakest link: the offensive line.

The LBC wrote:
- WR (less of a need, I think, in the minds of the fans than likely the mind of the FO; I could genuinely see this front office using #7 on a WR because they appear to have blamed the offense for losing them games last season - and probably rightfully-so)


Then what's the strategy when Williams or Benjamin demand a trade?

I'd be shocked if a team that has drafted for need each of the past four years made a luxury pick. I'm not going to argue that we need WR depth. It was painfully obvious that Rivers didn't trust Griff Whalen, or Isaiah Burse, or any of the other #5/#6 WRs this season. But, to address that with the 7th overall pick is crazy.

If they don't like Hooker, Adams, or simply the value of a safety so high in the draft, I'd think CB is the most likely choices. Like you said, our CBs aren't fits for what Bradley likes, and Verrett has yet to play a full 16 games. None of the depth players behind them have shown that they deserve more playing time either.

I'm just going by what I've seen of Telesco and how they operate. I genuinely doubt they're going to draft a guard in the 1st round. This is a front office who gives their Day 2 and 3 guys from previous drafts chance to prove they're not the solution before investing high to replace them. So Donavon Clark, Pulley, and Slauson are all likely going to get a crack at the RG spot so long as they deem Tuerk ready to step in at center, and that the two that don't win the job are going to be the depth.

If Benjamin demands a trade, he can promptly be told to pound sand. He didn't show up much at all last season and he costs more to trade/cut than to keep - and unless he wants to cut his salary to the vet minimum (which may still not make him cheaper to trade) - he has a contract and is expected to honor it.

I'd agree and make a case for CB over WR at #7, but with Sidney Jones now injured, there's no CB worth the pick if Lattimore is off the board.

What the team should do is a draft an Edge Rusher who could/would push Ingram to a SLB and discourage the team from giving him a $10M+ APY extension, but they aren't going to do that.
_________________

MathMan wrote:
I think I'm obfuscating all over the place!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Duffman57


Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Posts: 9428
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:20 am    Post subject: Re: Draft Needs Reply with quote

Neutral wrote:
I'm going in a different direction with our #1 need.

We don't have a starter at RG. If you've got Spencer Pulley penciled in there, then we'll need a LG when Orlando Franklin gets injured a couple games into the season and never regains his early-season form... again. You want to blame the offense for failing us last year? That's fine, but at least target the weakest link: the offensive line.

The LBC wrote:
- WR (less of a need, I think, in the minds of the fans than likely the mind of the FO; I could genuinely see this front office using #7 on a WR because they appear to have blamed the offense for losing them games last season - and probably rightfully-so)


Then what's the strategy when Williams or Benjamin demand a trade?

I'd be shocked if a team that has drafted for need each of the past four years made a luxury pick. I'm not going to argue that we need WR depth. It was painfully obvious that Rivers didn't trust Griff Whalen, or Isaiah Burse, or any of the other #5/#6 WRs this season. But, to address that with the 7th overall pick is crazy.

If they don't like Hooker, Adams, or simply the value of a safety so high in the draft, I'd think CB is the most likely choices. Like you said, our CBs aren't fits for what Bradley likes, and Verrett has yet to play a full 16 games. None of the depth players behind them have shown that they deserve more playing time either.


What are you talking about with this Franklin BS? The dude started 16 games last year, and other than his first year here, he's missed 1 game in his entire career. The guy is the farthest thing from an injury mess we have. He played about 90% of our offensive snaps last year...
_________________


MrDrew wrote:
Everything about Rivers is Awkward, reminiscent of a Giraffe with Down's Syndrome
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neutral


Joined: 08 Mar 2013
Posts: 1932
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Draft Needs Reply with quote

The LBC wrote:
I'm just going by what I've seen of Telesco and how they operate. I genuinely doubt they're going to draft a guard in the 1st round. This is a front office who gives their Day 2 and 3 guys from previous drafts chance to prove they're not the solution before investing high to replace them. So Donavon Clark, Pulley, and Slauson are all likely going to get a crack at the RG spot so long as they deem Tuerk ready to step in at center, and that the two that don't win the job are going to be the depth.

If Benjamin demands a trade, he can promptly be told to pound sand. He didn't show up much at all last season and he costs more to trade/cut than to keep - and unless he wants to cut his salary to the vet minimum (which may still not make him cheaper to trade) - he has a contract and is expected to honor it.


By that same token, though, they invested highly in Benjamin. I would think that would also mean that he would be given a chance to prove he's worth the contract. I actually think there's a good chance that he will. He showed that like in 2015 with the Browns, that he can run a variety of routes. And, it looks like the abysmal catch rate really was a product of the QB play in Cleveland. What he needs is to stay on the field. I think his production was reasonable given that he was only out there for ~50% of the team's offensive snaps.

Duffman57 wrote:
What are you talking about with this Franklin BS? The dude started 16 games last year, and other than his first year here, he's missed 1 game in his entire career. The guy is the farthest thing from an injury mess we have. He played about 90% of our offensive snaps last year...


I didn't realize that he made every start last year. He was on the injury report so often that I assumed that he missed a game or two. But, in a sense, he did. Looking back, he missed significant playing time within 5 of the games last year. I was really excited when it looked like he was redeeming himself with dominant play the first two games. But, when the nagging injuries started to hit, his play dropped off. Factoring in his 2015 struggles, and I don't see how you can go into the season without having a quality depth option behind him, like Pulley.

Though, like LBC said, if Tuerk is ready to start at C, that opens up the possibility of Slauson at RG. I'm not sure if they take that risk just yet. Slauson is in the last year of his deal, so they could easily just wait and see after Tuerk has a full season to practice with the team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chargerbuckeye


Joined: 09 Oct 2014
Posts: 1445
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:41 am    Post subject: Re: Draft Needs Reply with quote

Neutral wrote:
I'm going in a different direction with our #1 need.

We don't have a starter at RG. If you've got Spencer Pulley penciled in there, then we'll need a LG when Orlando Franklin gets injured a couple games into the season and never regains his early-season form... again. You want to blame the offense for failing us last year? That's fine, but at least target the weakest link: the offensive line.

The LBC wrote:
- WR (less of a need, I think, in the minds of the fans than likely the mind of the FO; I could genuinely see this front office using #7 on a WR because they appear to have blamed the offense for losing them games last season - and probably rightfully-so)


Then what's the strategy when Williams or Benjamin demand a trade?

I'd be shocked if a team that has drafted for need each of the past four years made a luxury pick. I'm not going to argue that we need WR depth. It was painfully obvious that Rivers didn't trust Griff Whalen, or Isaiah Burse, or any of the other #5/#6 WRs this season. But, to address that with the 7th overall pick is crazy.

If they don't like Hooker, Adams, or simply the value of a safety so high in the draft, I'd think CB is the most likely choices. Like you said, our CBs aren't fits for what Bradley likes, and Verrett has yet to play a full 16 games. None of the depth players behind them have shown that they deserve more playing time either.


There are reports out that they love hooker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Duffman57


Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Posts: 9428
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Draft Needs Reply with quote

Neutral wrote:
Duffman57 wrote:
What are you talking about with this Franklin BS? The dude started 16 games last year, and other than his first year here, he's missed 1 game in his entire career. The guy is the farthest thing from an injury mess we have. He played about 90% of our offensive snaps last year...


I didn't realize that he made every start last year. He was on the injury report so often that I assumed that he missed a game or two. But, in a sense, he did. Looking back, he missed significant playing time within 5 of the games last year. I was really excited when it looked like he was redeeming himself with dominant play the first two games. But, when the nagging injuries started to hit, his play dropped off. Factoring in his 2015 struggles, and I don't see how you can go into the season without having a quality depth option behind him, like Pulley.

Though, like LBC said, if Tuerk is ready to start at C, that opens up the possibility of Slauson at RG. I'm not sure if they take that risk just yet. Slauson is in the last year of his deal, so they could easily just wait and see after Tuerk has a full season to practice with the team.


I'm not sure why you'd wait though. It's not like he's this injury mess right now, he was fully healthy by last preseason and didn't spend any time on the injury report. Pulley's versatility just beat him out, and we had an IOL that started all 16 games across the board....

If you think he's ready, then you go for it.

I'd caveat that with something else though. This is a draft where I don't think we're pigeonholed into one certain position at any point, and this draft is deep enough to where, if you hit it right, you could be looking at solid contributor though round 4 or 5.

So at this point, for us, IMO it's worth it to target the guy you think will make the biggest impact. If we get a shot at Forrest Lamp in rd 2, you jump all over it and run away with him as your starting RG and keep Slauson as the C for another year, even if your original plan was to kick him to RG and start Tuerk.

IMO this draft is all about finding whoever will have the biggest impact on the team, and position really doesn't matter. Outside of QB and probably LB, there isn't a single position where, if there's a guy available we think is elite, that I would pass on him. So Marshawn Lattimore is there at 7? Dope, snipe him and run away with a Denver-like 3 deep at CB that's just stupid. You can say the same thing if you think Hooker is an elite Single High S, if you think Corey Davis is an elite WR, if you think Malik McDowell is Callais Campbell 2.0, if you think Solomon Thomas is going to be special. etc etc etc. You literally take the player that, even if they're not going to start, they're going to contribute at an elite level. You basically have to look at it like we need to make 1-2 elite position groups that are our identity on each side of the ball. I think we can do that between Rivers and Gordon at RB, and make that backfield our thing, and I think given the right pieces are available, we can make an very good OL in the near future. On Defense, we now have an elite pass rush group, if we add another S or another CB to that secondary, we make that a 2nd calling card, and that may be one of the best D's in the NFL.

I think all the positions of need, we have options and none of our #1 options right now are plain out liabilities. Even Lowery, Tuerk or Attaochu/Emmanuel are guys I don't have a problem with starting, as long as we have some elite group on the field at the same time.
_________________


MrDrew wrote:
Everything about Rivers is Awkward, reminiscent of a Giraffe with Down's Syndrome
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neutral


Joined: 08 Mar 2013
Posts: 1932
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems like it comes down to a difference in risk tolerance on the offensive line.

I was under the impression that Tuerk was limited in training camp last year, but would have been at/close to 100% by the start of the season if it came to that. There is a report that he was limited in OTAs last year. I also haven't heard anything about how he looked in practices, which makes me wonder if he's done enough to make the staff think he should start this coming year. I'm seeing that as worst case we have cheap, quality depth for another season. I'd rather that than not have enough quality starters and yet another year of our offense suffering because of poor OL play.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Diego Chargers All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group