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

Chargers 2017 draft thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Los Angeles Chargers
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who should we draft
Myles Garrett
17%
 17%  [ 4 ]
Jalen Tabor
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Marlon Humphrey
4%
 4%  [ 1 ]
Marshawn Lattimore
13%
 13%  [ 3 ]
Jamaal Adams
21%
 21%  [ 5 ]
Deshaun Watson
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Cam Robinson
8%
 8%  [ 2 ]
Other
34%
 34%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 23

Author Message
Highboltage55


Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Posts: 185
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chargerbuckeye wrote:
JammerHammer21 wrote:
chargerbuckeye wrote:
JammerHammer21 wrote:
Give me Peppers or give me death imo


We don't need a Linebacker. If you want someone from SCUM so bad, we can get Darboh later

Peppers is overrated


Yeah, that's why I named a safety


Be real, Peppers is a linebacker. That is what most teams see him as, and that is why he did LB drills. Peppers will get drafted by New Orleans. Hooker or Adams in rd 1.


All along I have viewed Peppers as a Stong Safety. He could likely even line up in the Nickel and cover Tight Ends that are flexed out, but his bread and butter will be playing "in the box" and used in zone coverage- let him play the "robber" and cover the middle of the field.

He is still pretty raw in general and obviously was used in a variety of ways at Michigan, but he has great athleticism and I am sure once he is given a position to focus on he will flourish over time.

I think he can compare to TJ Ward, Kenny Vaccaro or Calvin Pryor (the prospect, apparently he hasn't been doing to well as a Pro).

Peppers is a lot of hype, I would no way in hell want him at 7, but if we landed him in the 2nd (maybe we trade out of 7 and acquire more picks?) or 3rd I would be happy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The LBC


Global Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 34852
Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neutral wrote:
Boltstrikes wrote:
I think we will have the opportunity to have the first safety off the board at seven. That being said with realistically five day one starters at the position I'm not sure it's great value as we can land a starter in the second.


This is feeling a lot like 2 years ago where we spent months convincing ourselves we weren't going to take the obvious pick (Melvin Gordon).

Telesco has reportedly made an offer to Addae. If he accepts, that leaves a very specific need in free safety.

To be fair, the obvious pick was more a positional pick than a specific player. If we're being realistic, cuz remember that was the "Hammers" draft, Gurley could well have been the guy and Telesco panicked and popped off a trade-up to get Gordon as the other (perceived) top back in the class, fearing getting left out in the cold like he was with Fluker. In reality, Gurley fit the "hammer" mold more than Gordon.

This has been a FO that's tended far more to take substance over sizzle, especially in the 1st round. Who knows, they could potentially view Adams as a FS option (he can play single-high... it might not be his best fit, but he can fit there), and he has the sort of intangibles that this FO tends to put a premium on: Vocal leader on the field, tone-setter, above average academics, passion for the game.
_________________

MathMan wrote:
I think I'm obfuscating all over the place!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 68388
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The LBC wrote:
Neutral wrote:
Boltstrikes wrote:
I think we will have the opportunity to have the first safety off the board at seven. That being said with realistically five day one starters at the position I'm not sure it's great value as we can land a starter in the second.


This is feeling a lot like 2 years ago where we spent months convincing ourselves we weren't going to take the obvious pick (Melvin Gordon).

Telesco has reportedly made an offer to Addae. If he accepts, that leaves a very specific need in free safety.

To be fair, the obvious pick was more a positional pick than a specific player. If we're being realistic, cuz remember that was the "Hammers" draft, Gurley could well have been the guy and Telesco panicked and popped off a trade-up to get Gordon as the other (perceived) top back in the class, fearing getting left out in the cold like he was with Fluker. In reality, Gurley fit the "hammer" mold more than Gordon.

This has been a FO that's tended far more to take substance over sizzle, especially in the 1st round. Who knows, they could potentially view Adams as a FS option (he can play single-high... it might not be his best fit, but he can fit there), and he has the sort of intangibles that this FO tends to put a premium on: Vocal leader on the field, tone-setter, above average academics, passion for the game.


FWIW, I think he'd be excellent in that role. If you look at what Keanu Neal did in Atlanta this year, he's definitely more like Adams than Earl Thomas.

Adams definitely has the athleticism for that role, and he's a total film junkie. You can tell by the way he reads and anticipates plays. Hooker is more similar to Earl Thomas, but Adams is the better football player right now. If you draft Hooker, it's for the potential. And it's not the wrong move. Both Hooker and Adams would be tremendous additions.

But I agree that I could definitely see Adams as the pick. When you think about Bosa, does he seem more similar to Adams or Hooker? IMO, he seems very similar to Adams. Phenomenal pure football player, emotional leader on the field, very refined and sound game, and incredibly instinctive. Bosa wasn't an upside pick. Don't get me wrong. Bosa and Adams both have tons of upsides, but both are polished players who can make an immediate impact.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lowe_51


Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 346
Location: NJ
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i never hear mention of derek barnett...thoughts? does it make sense to rescind the tag on ingram and get a guy like barnett? he's got all the production you could ask for in college and would seem like a good fit opposite bosa in the 4-3.
i think a trade back is possible if there's a team in love with a QB still there at 7 or if anyone is all in on OJ Howard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The LBC


Global Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 34852
Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lowe_51 wrote:
i never hear mention of derek barnett...thoughts? does it make sense to rescind the tag on ingram and get a guy like barnett? he's got all the production you could ask for in college and would seem like a good fit opposite bosa in the 4-3.
i think a trade back is possible if there's a team in love with a QB still there at 7 or if anyone is all in on OJ Howard.

Why would the team rescind the tag? I mean, if there was a player on the team in need of extension that having that money tied up in Ingram was preventative to, I could see a reason. But there isn't. And there really aren't the type of FA's still out on the market worth kicking large contracts or sums of guaranteed monies at (if there were, they'd arguably have gotten said contract by this point). So again... what's the point of rescinding the tag on Ingram? Not paying him the tag amount for a season because he's "not worth that AAV?" That egg's already broken, you're not putting it back in the shell.

Now, as to Barnett. It's certainly possible, but he doesn't really fit the LEO position as it is designed. It's typically intended to line up speed-rushers like Chris Clemons (was the guys used by Gus in both Seattle and Jacksonville) in the Wide-9 to set them up to win with get-off. Get-off (burst) and explosiveness aren't Barnett's bread-and-butter; he wins with technique, not athleticism. It's not so much that he can't play the position, rather he lacks the traits to be good value for this particular position at #7 overall.

And I still think the most viable trade-back option is going to come in the form of someone wanting to get ahead of Carolina for Fournette (if he makes it past Jacksonville) or the Eagles coming up for a corner.
_________________

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


Moderator
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 7212
Location: LA MIRADA, CA
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Fournette makes it to us and someone doesn't offer us some significant compensation then I'd like to make the pick. Gordon has health issues, ball security issues and having a two headed monster to take pressure off of Rivers gives the offense more consistency. It's a bit of a luxury pick but passing on that kind of talent without compensation would kill me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The LBC


Global Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 34852
Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boltstrikes wrote:
If Fournette makes it to us and someone doesn't offer us some significant compensation then I'd like to make the pick. Gordon has health issues, ball security issues and having a two headed monster to take pressure off of Rivers gives the offense more consistency. It's a bit of a luxury pick but passing on that kind of talent without compensation would kill me.

Well that isn't happening. And Gordon's "health issues" are overblown. If Gordon has "health issues" then 80% of the league has "health issues." Guys get injured, that doesn't make them injury-prone.

And there's no way in Blue Hell they sink a Top 10 pick into another RB only two years removed from trading up in the 1st to draft Gordon.

Realistically, I don't see him falling any further than Cincinnati (notorious BPA pickers and have already said they're going to draft an RB at some point this year).
_________________

MathMan wrote:
I think I'm obfuscating all over the place!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BoltsFan937


Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 1135
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't posted here in a long time but I stop in from time to time and its always good to hear your guys thoughts on the draft. I wanna throw something out to you guys that I feel is blatantly obvious but no one is talking about and thy name is Cam Robinson. Don't laugh, hear me out. First off, its not my choice/pick but I can really see this happening and here's why

- According to various scouts around the league (at least from what I've read/gathered) Cam's a 1st round talent that they feel will go in the top 20. The latest rumor is he won't get past Baltimore at 16. I mention this only because I've seen him ranked as low as 40 by some pundits and I think thats ludicrous.

- Offensive line is our biggest need. I know safety is the vogue pick but everyone knows we've never placed a premium on that position. Not to mention this tackle class is pitiful and we could possibly pick up a safety in the 2nd (Baker,Melifonwu,Peppers?). If we don't grab one in the 1st, we won't get one. Now this is arguable but I still feel Robinson has the highest ceiling of the tackles in this class. He's only 21, he has work to do but he does have the measurable that coaches will feel they can work with.

- Robinson can be groomed behind Okung for a couple years, who by the way is the comp name mostly associated with Robinson. Best case, Robinson beats out Barksdale for the right tackle spot, allowing us to relegate Barksdale to the backup role and Robinson provides an insurance policy in the case Okung gets hurt. Worst case, we slot him in at guard (like Miami did with Tunsil) while he gets accustomed to the playing tackle in the NFL. Either way, we pick up an upgrade on the line somewhere.

- Financially - it could allow us to cut either Franklin or Barksdale (possibly both if we double up on Oline in the middle rounds) as post June 1st cuts. The cheaper rookie deals would mitigate the financial loss while allowing us to upgrade the Oline. For instance, lets say we take Robinson in the first and say Pat Elflein in the 3rd. The line could be Okung-Slausson-Tuerk-Elflein-Robinson, with Barksdale and Hairston as backup and Pulley/whoever as backup. Keep in mind Elflein can play guard or center so can Slausson so that provides nice flexibility inside.

- The rumors I read were that Lynn said the offensive line HAD to be fixed for us to accomplish our offensive goals. I highly doubt signing Okung alone was all he meant. I feel like this makes a lot of sense, although its probably not the most popular pick.

Thoughts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neutral


Joined: 08 Mar 2013
Posts: 1967
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoltsFan937 wrote:
I know safety is the vogue pick but everyone knows we've never placed a premium on that position.


Do we really know that?

For Telesco's first two years, we already had Weddle and Gilchrist. Year three we had Weddle and Addae - who, I think there's no longer any doubt that our FO is much higher on than the fans. Last year was the only year that we needed to add a safety (with Addae entrenched as the other starter). I don't see signing Dwight Lowery as definitive proof that they don't value the position. Making a bargain signing last offseason could have simply been a way to manage the limited resources (cap space and high draft picks) available to get a likely starter.

Quote:
Not to mention this tackle class is pitiful and we could possibly pick up a safety in the 2nd (Baker,Melifonwu,Peppers?). If we don't grab one in the 1st, we won't get one.


I agree. But, I think that's why we made the Okung signing. I see that making sense in the context that Telesco doesn't like any left tackle at #7, and knows there won't be one available at #38.

Quote:
Robinson can be groomed behind Okung for a couple years, who by the way is the comp name mostly associated with Robinson. Best case, Robinson beats out Barksdale for the right tackle spot, allowing us to relegate Barksdale to the backup role and Robinson provides an insurance policy in the case Okung gets hurt. Worst case, we slot him in at guard (like Miami did with Tunsil) while he gets accustomed to the playing tackle in the NFL. Either way, we pick up an upgrade on the line somewhere.

- Financially - it could allow us to cut either Franklin or Barksdale (possibly both if we double up on Oline in the middle rounds) as post June 1st cuts. The cheaper rookie deals would mitigate the financial loss while allowing us to upgrade the Oline. For instance, lets say we take Robinson in the first and say Pat Elflein in the 3rd. The line could be Okung-Slausson-Tuerk-Elflein-Robinson, with Barksdale and Hairston as backup and Pulley/whoever as backup. Keep in mind Elflein can play guard or center so can Slausson so that provides nice flexibility inside.


Reading the line-shifting scenarios got me thinking... would Barksdale to RG after taking Moton in the 2nd work? Too weird? I would think that with a strong season in 2015, and a guaranteed salary, that they would give Barksdale a chance to redeem himself. And, I expect the same with Franklin, knowing that Pulley is available as a Plan B if he doesn't deliver.

We're not hard up for cap space, so they shouldn't be taking financials into account in the draft.

Quote:
The rumors I read were that Lynn said the offensive line HAD to be fixed for us to accomplish our offensive goals. I highly doubt signing Okung alone was all he meant. I feel like this makes a lot of sense, although its probably not the most popular pick.

Thoughts?


I agree with that first part. I think we're in the beginning of a major overhaul of the line, with LT/RG addressed this year and Franklin and Barksdale making a case for why we shouldn't address LG/RT next year.

But, I'm not a fan of Cam Robinson as a prospect, so I would hate the pick. I honestly hope we pass on him again at #38, if he's there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kyle21121


Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 10794
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taking Fournette would be kinda ridiculous imo. If a team is willing to offer up a lot to trade up then yea I would probably trade down depending who is available on the board.

I also don't dispute OL being the biggest need but with the Okung signing and it not being a great OL class I don't feel comfortable taking someone at 7 again if a trade down did occur that would be different.

Looking over the draft I've sorta done a ranking of whom I would prefer at 7:

1. Myles (definitely gone)
2. Thomas (probably gone)
3. Adams (maybe gone)
4. Allen (maybe gone)
5. Hooker (probably available)
6. Lattimore (maybe gone) BPA?
7. M. Williams (maybe available)

Any thoughts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Boltstrikes


Moderator
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 7212
Location: LA MIRADA, CA
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taking Fournette would likely be bpa if we have the option. It's the Carolina Foster/Williams/Stewart theory and likely does the most to help us win now. We can't afford a project with the clock ticking on Rivers. Hooker is my favorite pick in the draft but he's likely three years from being a star and Rivers has likely two years left.

Life after Rivers looks grim. Win now or Los Angeles will fail. Playoffs or bust and that leaves us at 7 with Adams as the best pick. Fournette as a consolation if he slides.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Highboltage55


Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Posts: 185
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My Big Board (#7)
1. Jamal Adams- Do it all Safety, Team Leader, Experienced, High Floor with a good ceiling.

2. Jonathan Allen-Could possibly slip to us on Draft Day? Could project as a SSDE on "Base Downs" and kick inside (sub out Mebane) during Sub packages. If Liuget doesn't perform up to his contract this year, he could "potentially" be a CAP casualty next year, leaving the door open for Allen as a 3 Tech. The only thing with Allen/Thomas is that they are kind of competing in the same role we would expect Bosa to fill. Bosa is a TRUE EDGE, while these guys are "tweeners". I don't really view either guy as a Geno Atkins, Aaron Donald or Tommie Harris type of TRUE 3 Tech. Allen is a technician and Thomas is more of an athletic freak. I doubt Bosa plays the LEO (I bet we slot Attaouchu there, potentially Ingram-although I view him as the SAM), so likely Bosa will be the SSDE. Mebane is the Nose and Liuget the 3 Tech / UT. Bosa was hyped up with Michael Bennett/Justin Tuck type versatility pre-draft, but we didn't see much of this last year (he was a true badass on the EDGE, don't change what works!). Allen in my mind would likely be a situational pass rusher (if we have NO injuries hypothetically) to get his "feet wet" this upcoming Season until he potentially takes over for Liuget, or carves out his own niche.

I do like Jaleel Johnson in the 2nd/3rd. Kind of a darkhorse D-Line pick. Strong as an OX, can play both 3 tech and NT (I think would be a great replacement for Mebane).

3. Corey Davis-Although I am a fan of a few Mid Round guys (Juju, Curtis Samuel, Godwin, etc.), Davis IMO is the only true #1 WR in this class. Would be more of a "luxury" pick. If Adams, Allen, Thomas, Lattimore were all off the board, he would be my guy (would rather have Davis than say Barnett, Hooker, or "reaching" on one of the Tackles).

4. Marshon Lattimore / Soloman Thomas-Lattimore would give us a secondary similar to Denvers big 3 (Talib, Harris, Roby) but also insurance for Verrett. Stud player, limited experience (doesn't seem like a TT pick) and this draft is DEEP on Corners-I doubt he is the pick.

Thomas is similar to Allen, but is a better athlete with less experience. Likely an End of base downs and interior rusher during pass rushing situations.

5. Malik Hooker- RAW, but high ceiling player as a "true" ballhawk. Would fit Cover 2 / Cover 3 as a playmaker, but had some injuries this year (hip labrum iirc). I was very high on him initially, but I would still PREFER Adams. If we could look land Budda Baker in Round 2 I would opt to pass on Hooker and go D-Line in Round 1 (Allen, Thomas, McDowell) or even Corey Davis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goldfishwars


Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Posts: 11929
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi guys

We're voting on the Chargers pick at 7. It would be great to have your thoughts and votes.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=587080

Thanks,

GFW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neutral


Joined: 08 Mar 2013
Posts: 1967
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solomon Thomas seems like an odd pick for the Niners. Like... I get it if you're expecting to be in nickel/dime ~70% of the time where he can play a more traditional DE. But, I'm assuming that neither Buckner nor Armstead are playing the 2-gap 1T in base, which would put Thomas at LEO. I'm not seeing that as a good fit.

I also don't think that the Jets take Hooker come draft day. Adams, if he's available, absolutely. Todd Bowles would be thrilled to have an interchangeable safety like him leading their secondary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The LBC


Global Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 34852
Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neutral wrote:
Solomon Thomas seems like an odd pick for the Niners. Like... I get it if you're expecting to be in nickel/dime ~70% of the time where he can play a more traditional DE. But, I'm assuming that neither Buckner nor Armstead are playing the 2-gap 1T in base, which would put Thomas at LEO. I'm not seeing that as a good fit.

I also don't think that the Jets take Hooker come draft day. Adams, if he's available, absolutely. Todd Bowles would be thrilled to have an interchangeable safety like him leading their secondary.

I'll be honest, this draft is going to shake out a lot differently than a lot of fans of think it's going to.

There are going to be 1-2 surprise guys in the Top 10... because there pretty much always are every year without fail. (Odds are good that Reddick climbs up there, and honestly one of the OT's will go - it's just too high-premium a position... I mean, for crying out loud Ereck Flowers went Top 10 recently!)

I'll be truly surprised if two safeties go in the Top 15, let alone the Top 10... and that assumes you even count Peppers as a safety which I'm not sure is how he'll actually be treated.

Teams are going to reach for premium positions. Fans can insist till they're blue in the face that the value is bad, but again it happens EVERY YEAR.
_________________

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

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Los Angeles Chargers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
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