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

The New 2017 NFL Draft thread Chargers edition
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Los Angeles Chargers
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who do you want the Chargers to Take At 7
Malik Hooker
9%
 9%  [ 1 ]
Jamaal Adams
54%
 54%  [ 6 ]
Marshon Lattimore
9%
 9%  [ 1 ]
Jonathan Allen
9%
 9%  [ 1 ]
Other
9%
 9%  [ 1 ]
Trade Down
9%
 9%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 11

Author Message
chargerbuckeye


Joined: 09 Oct 2014
Posts: 1610
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:10 pm    Post subject: The New 2017 NFL Draft thread Chargers edition Reply with quote

Things are starting to come into form now and when it comes to the previous thread I created, a lot has changed

Who would you like the bolts to pick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neutral


Joined: 08 Mar 2013
Posts: 1967
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I voted Lattimore. Ideally, Cleveland would take a QB at #1 and we'd include next year's first in a package to move up to #2 and take Myles Garrett. But, that's not very likely, so in order of (realistic) preference:

1. Lattimore - there's an 'it' factor there, a mentality of shadowing and shutting down his opponent, that shows up in his play that I really like. I think he's going to be a star. And, with none of our backup CBs looking like clear options as the 3rd corner, he'll get a lot of playing time right away.

2. Adams - I stated in the draft thread that I prefer Adams over Hooker, and I'm sticking with that. I have no doubts that he can succeed in a single-high and Cover-3. However, I question whether he'll be available. The same high-character traits that Telesco likes will also make him a very attractive prospect to Jon Robinson of the Titans. I have them taking him at #5, assuming they stay at that pick.

3. Hooker - The player I expect them to take if they stay at #7. I agree with the sentiment that he's become overrated, and I'd be surprised if he goes top-6. But... the specific scheme fit of Bradley's defense is what makes this realistic and worth the risk to me. I'm not sure that he's a top-10 prospect to many other teams.

4. Lamp - My #1 OL in this class, who would immediately become the starter at RG. There would be room to debate whether it's the best value of a high pick, but I'd gladly "reach" on a player I feel confident can become a Pro-Bowl level player if prospects at more premium positions are off the board. Obviously, if we end up trading back, this becomes more likely.

I don't want a WR, and I don't expect one at #7 either. The team's list of visits suggest they're looking early Day 3 to take one, and that seems realistic. Also, Stevie Johnson is still unsigned. I'd welcome him back as our #5 WR, if he's not holding out for something better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zappaz


Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 1665
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I keep flip flopping between Allen and Adams. Either pick I would be happy with but right now I am leaning Allen since the safety class is so strong I think with our 2nd or 3rd pick we can grab someone like Budda Baker, Obi Melifonwu, or Josh Jones who could come in and be an improvement for us.

I'm worried about Lattimore's health combined with our luck in the health department. We already have one super talented cornerback who can't stay on the field.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
game3525


Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Posts: 11021
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My top four choices.

1. Lamp-I know offensive lineman isn't sexy and I have said in the past you don't take these guys with a top ten pick. But Lamp is a stud and the Chargers need to get much better in their interior to run Lynn's system effectively.

2. Lattimore- An elite talent at a premium position? Sign me up! Also you can never have enough good corners.

3. Adams-I expect him to be the pick, giving he checks out all the boxes when it comes to a classic TT first round pick (High character, production, big-time school). I wouldn't be upset about this pick, but the safety class is so deep this year and you can get Thompson and Baker on day two and they aren't that much behind Adams as a prospect IMO.

4. Hooker-Boom/Bust pick, which makes sense when you are picking top 10. Like Adams, I wouldn't be upset with this pick, because from a scheme and talent standpoint, it makes a ton of sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chargerbuckeye


Joined: 09 Oct 2014
Posts: 1610
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neutral wrote:
I voted Lattimore. Ideally, Cleveland would take a QB at #1 and we'd include next year's first in a package to move up to #2 and take Myles Garrett. But, that's not very likely, so in order of (realistic) preference:

1. Lattimore - there's an 'it' factor there, a mentality of shadowing and shutting down his opponent, that shows up in his play that I really like. I think he's going to be a star. And, with none of our backup CBs looking like clear options as the 3rd corner, he'll get a lot of playing time right away.

2. Adams - I stated in the draft thread that I prefer Adams over Hooker, and I'm sticking with that. I have no doubts that he can succeed in a single-high and Cover-3. However, I question whether he'll be available. The same high-character traits that Telesco likes will also make him a very attractive prospect to Jon Robinson of the Titans. I have them taking him at #5, assuming they stay at that pick.

3. Hooker - The player I expect them to take if they stay at #7. I agree with the sentiment that he's become overrated, and I'd be surprised if he goes top-6. But... the specific scheme fit of Bradley's defense is what makes this realistic and worth the risk to me. I'm not sure that he's a top-10 prospect to many other teams.

4. Lamp - My #1 OL in this class, who would immediately become the starter at RG. There would be room to debate whether it's the best value of a high pick, but I'd gladly "reach" on a player I feel confident can become a Pro-Bowl level player if prospects at more premium positions are off the board. Obviously, if we end up trading back, this becomes more likely.

I don't want a WR, and I don't expect one at #7 either. The team's list of visits suggest they're looking early Day 3 to take one, and that seems realistic. Also, Stevie Johnson is still unsigned. I'd welcome him back as our #5 WR, if he's not holding out for something better.


Do you think cleveland is dumb enough to pass on Garrett
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Duffman57


Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Posts: 9470
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chargerbuckeye wrote:
Neutral wrote:
I voted Lattimore. Ideally, Cleveland would take a QB at #1 and we'd include next year's first in a package to move up to #2 and take Myles Garrett. But, that's not very likely, so in order of (realistic) preference:

1. Lattimore - there's an 'it' factor there, a mentality of shadowing and shutting down his opponent, that shows up in his play that I really like. I think he's going to be a star. And, with none of our backup CBs looking like clear options as the 3rd corner, he'll get a lot of playing time right away.

2. Adams - I stated in the draft thread that I prefer Adams over Hooker, and I'm sticking with that. I have no doubts that he can succeed in a single-high and Cover-3. However, I question whether he'll be available. The same high-character traits that Telesco likes will also make him a very attractive prospect to Jon Robinson of the Titans. I have them taking him at #5, assuming they stay at that pick.

3. Hooker - The player I expect them to take if they stay at #7. I agree with the sentiment that he's become overrated, and I'd be surprised if he goes top-6. But... the specific scheme fit of Bradley's defense is what makes this realistic and worth the risk to me. I'm not sure that he's a top-10 prospect to many other teams.

4. Lamp - My #1 OL in this class, who would immediately become the starter at RG. There would be room to debate whether it's the best value of a high pick, but I'd gladly "reach" on a player I feel confident can become a Pro-Bowl level player if prospects at more premium positions are off the board. Obviously, if we end up trading back, this becomes more likely.

I don't want a WR, and I don't expect one at #7 either. The team's list of visits suggest they're looking early Day 3 to take one, and that seems realistic. Also, Stevie Johnson is still unsigned. I'd welcome him back as our #5 WR, if he's not holding out for something better.


Do you think cleveland is dumb enough to pass on Garrett


Um....he said he doesn't....its right there before he posts anything else.

But I really don't know with this class. Honestly, I'm pretty confident that Adams is going to be the pick, and I don't think there's much of a question that he's going to be there. I don't love the idea of him though.

I like Corey Davis, but as LBC and I have talked about before, I don't see him going in the top 15 realistically, just based off trends. Mike Williams isn't a guy I want, and I don't think he fits this offense very well stylistically.

Lattimore would be awesome, and give us an insane 3 deep at CB, but Hamstring injuries specifically scare the hell out of me, and even though he was healthy all last year, I still am freaked out by it. I almost think Conely is the more likely pick, because of his length (33+" arms on a CB is insane) and his more consistent production at the college level (and as I've said before, TT seems to prefer guys who have been high on his board for a year).

Hooker won't be getting picked by us I don't think. He's got one flat out elite skill that will play at any level, but the rest of his game needs developing, and that's plain and simple going to take a while. Add that he's a 1 year guy and I can't see Telesco pulling the trigger on him.

I like Lamp a lot, but unless you're convinced that an OG is an all pro for 10+ years to come, you don't take him in the top 10. I'd be comfortable with him around 15 though, if we did go that rout. I also think that we're going to give the line a go as it sits right now (Okung-Franklin-Tuerk-Slauson-Bark), and I think those guys have the ability to run Meyer's scheme really effectively, maybe we get an insurance policy at OG in the mid rounds to do some re-shuffling in case Tuerk doesn't work out, but unless Lamp drops and we trade up for him, I doubt he comes here.

I like McDowell a lot, but I'm honestly not that sure where he fits in, as we have the spots on the DL all filled up, and I'm not spending a top 10 pick on a guy that's just going to be insurance for Liuget, who's under contract for the next 4 years IIRC. If we do, it means kicking Bosa out of his natural role in this defense and I'm not about to do that, no matter how much I like him.

Solomon Thomas is another guy like Hooker, where I see it long term, but you're not going to get good production out of him for the next few years until it clicks for him, and you have the same issue as you do with McDowell, unless you think he can play the LEO, which may be interesting, as his numbers are more or less perfectly lined up with Justin Houston's.

Honestly what it comes down to for me, Is just take the best player on your board. No matter who it is. Take someone and establish an identity. You take McDowell/Thomas, you're committing to have a dominant Front 4 that you can move around and be versatile with. You take Lattimore and you have a pass rush/CB combo that rivals the Broncos a few years back. Take Corey Davis/Mike Williams and you have to think you're up there (assuming the development of Tyrell Williams) with the top WR units in the league. But that's assuming you think one guy out there is elite. I'm not convinced there is, so in that case, do what you can to trade down, and get more picks to go for some boom or bust guys in the mid rounds. But the one thing I've gone on about this year is that we're a good team that lacks an identity or a section of the game to hang our hat on. Until we get one, I don't think this team is a legit contender for the super bowl (though I think were a playoff contender right now). We'll see how the draft works out though, like I said before, Adams to me just screams Tom Telesco pick.
_________________


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
game3525


Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Posts: 11021
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But the one thing I've gone on about this year is that we're a good team that lacks an identity or a section of the game to hang our hat on. Until we get one, I don't think this team is a legit contender for the super bowl (though I think were a playoff contender right now).


Exactly.

We are in a different position today then we have been in years past, where we needed to just add talent across the board. Now, the roster is fairly talented (it may be a homer thing to say, but there isn't much separation between us and the other teams in the division).

However, we don't have a dominate individual unit on the team (the Raiders have their o-line, KC has their ST unit, Denver has their secondary, NE and their TE's, Steelers and their o-line and receivers, etc.).

This is the primary reason why Lamp and Lattimore are my top two choices. They help us build on potential strengths. With Lamp, getting a potential pro-bowl caliber guard could take the offense from good to potentially elite. And if you have an elite offense and a average/above average defense that generates turnovers, that makes you a super bowl contender in today's NFL.

Lattimore, like you pointed out gives us three potentially great man-coverage corners. And this especially appealing in a division, in which two of the teams (Denver and Oakland) receivers struggle against man coverage. And it also gives Gus a ton of flexibility when it comes to play-calling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chargerbuckeye


Joined: 09 Oct 2014
Posts: 1610
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Lattimore will be gone at 5, and with the jets likely to trade their pick to cleveland, The chargers should have their choice

My mock changes by the day

1. CLE: Garrett
2. SF: Trubisky
3. CHI: Allen
4. JAX: Fournette
5. TEN: Lattimore
6. CLE VIA NYJ: Watson but if the Jets stand Pat, Thomas
7. Chargers choice of Safety, would be happy with either. Whoever Gus likes the most, I like the most.
8. CAR: McCaffrey
9. CIN: Thomas or Barnett
10. BUF: Whichever safety the chargers don't pick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Duffman57


Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Posts: 9470
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

game3525 wrote:
Quote:
But the one thing I've gone on about this year is that we're a good team that lacks an identity or a section of the game to hang our hat on. Until we get one, I don't think this team is a legit contender for the super bowl (though I think were a playoff contender right now).


Exactly.

We are in a different position today then we have been in years past, where we needed to just add talent across the board. Now, the roster is fairly talented (it may be a homer thing to say, but there isn't much separation between us and the other teams in the division).

However, we don't have a dominate individual unit on the team (the Raiders have their o-line, KC has their ST unit, Denver has their secondary, NE and their TE's, Steelers and their o-line and receivers, etc.).

This is the primary reason why Lamp and Lattimore are my top two choices. They help us build on potential strengths. With Lamp, getting a potential pro-bowl caliber guard could take the offense from good to potentially elite. And if you have an elite offense and a average/above average defense that generates turnovers, that makes you a super bowl contender in today's NFL.

Lattimore, like you pointed out gives us three potentially great man-coverage corners. And this especially appealing in a division, in which two of the teams (Denver and Oakland) receivers struggle against man coverage. And it also gives Gus a ton of flexibility when it comes to play-calling.


I think its much less about a unit and more about one area of the game. You can't just have elite TE's if you don't have a QB to get them the ball, etc. Same goes for every position. I think you need to string 2-3 position groups together. Steelers have an elite OL, but Le'Veon Bell may be the best RB in the league, so they're running game is absurd (you can say the same about Dallas). NE is a little different because of the genius they have running the schematics, so they don't need one elite group, though the TE/QB combo made them hard to beat. Denver didn't just have elite CB's, but they had 2 elite pass rushers. And you can keep on going with that.

I think we're close in a few different areas. I think Melvin can be a top 5 RB if you put him behind a great OL, and I think you can have an elite passing game D if you add another elite CB. Those are two VERY good areas of the game to string together IMO (basically build a lead, and be able to ground and pound, while the other team has to decide how to put points up in a hurry vs an elite secondary/pass rush). So I think we're close with the pieces we have, and having an established QB is always good.
_________________


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
game3525


Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Posts: 11021
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Duffman57 wrote:
game3525 wrote:
Quote:
But the one thing I've gone on about this year is that we're a good team that lacks an identity or a section of the game to hang our hat on. Until we get one, I don't think this team is a legit contender for the super bowl (though I think were a playoff contender right now).


Exactly.

We are in a different position today then we have been in years past, where we needed to just add talent across the board. Now, the roster is fairly talented (it may be a homer thing to say, but there isn't much separation between us and the other teams in the division).

However, we don't have a dominate individual unit on the team (the Raiders have their o-line, KC has their ST unit, Denver has their secondary, NE and their TE's, Steelers and their o-line and receivers, etc.).

This is the primary reason why Lamp and Lattimore are my top two choices. They help us build on potential strengths. With Lamp, getting a potential pro-bowl caliber guard could take the offense from good to potentially elite. And if you have an elite offense and a average/above average defense that generates turnovers, that makes you a super bowl contender in today's NFL.

Lattimore, like you pointed out gives us three potentially great man-coverage corners. And this especially appealing in a division, in which two of the teams (Denver and Oakland) receivers struggle against man coverage. And it also gives Gus a ton of flexibility when it comes to play-calling.


I think its much less about a unit and more about one area of the game. You can't just have elite TE's if you don't have a QB to get them the ball, etc. Same goes for every position. I think you need to string 2-3 position groups together. Steelers have an elite OL, but Le'Veon Bell may be the best RB in the league, so they're running game is absurd (you can say the same about Dallas). NE is a little different because of the genius they have running the schematics, so they don't need one elite group, though the TE/QB combo made them hard to beat. Denver didn't just have elite CB's, but they had 2 elite pass rushers. And you can keep on going with that.

I think we're close in a few different areas. I think Melvin can be a top 5 RB if you put him behind a great OL, and I think you can have an elite passing game D if you add another elite CB. Those are two VERY good areas of the game to string together IMO (basically build a lead, and be able to ground and pound, while the other team has to decide how to put points up in a hurry vs an elite secondary/pass rush). So I think we're close with the pieces we have, and having an established QB is always good.


Yeah, this is a better way of phrasing what I am trying to say. Teams in the NFL mostly win because they excel in one or two areas of the game. This kind of thinking is why the Cowboys took Zeke with the fourth pick, even though Ramsey played a more premium position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Boltstrikes


Moderator
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 7217
Location: LA MIRADA, CA
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we could have an elite passing game if Keenan Allen would stop having breakfast with DX.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neutral


Joined: 08 Mar 2013
Posts: 1967
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chargerbuckeye wrote:
8. CAR: McCaffrey


The persistence of this rumor makes me think the Chargers have a tentative offer to trade down with the Saints.

I get that the Panthers want to add another RB, and like the versatility McCaffrey offers, but I can't picture a better fit than in Sean Payton's offense. You just know that he's watched the tape and thinks about using him like another Reggie Bush or Darren Sproles. I don't know if they'd target a RB that early. But, they've been linked to multiple veteran FAs to pair with Mark Ingram, and have yet to sign anyone. I just get the feeling that Payton's going to pound the table for McCaffrey. And, if there's a legit threat that a division rival will take him right before they pick, he'll ask Loomis to trade up.

Unless the Jets are willing to take a below-market offer, #7 would be the spot. If the teams did trade, I expect it would go like this:

Chargers send #7, #151
Saints send #11, #76, #229

Fair value for the jump is a bit less than the value of the Saints' original 3rd, so I'd expect something to go back. The Saints are missing their 4th and 5th round picks, so the swap of late round picks makes sense. And that leaves them with their premium picks (#32 and #42) to target help on defense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chargerbuckeye


Joined: 09 Oct 2014
Posts: 1610
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neutral wrote:
chargerbuckeye wrote:
8. CAR: McCaffrey


The persistence of this rumor makes me think the Chargers have a tentative offer to trade down with the Saints.

I get that the Panthers want to add another RB, and like the versatility McCaffrey offers, but I can't picture a better fit than in Sean Payton's offense. You just know that he's watched the tape and thinks about using him like another Reggie Bush or Darren Sproles. I don't know if they'd target a RB that early. But, they've been linked to multiple veteran FAs to pair with Mark Ingram, and have yet to sign anyone. I just get the feeling that Payton's going to pound the table for McCaffrey. And, if there's a legit threat that a division rival will take him right before they pick, he'll ask Loomis to trade up.

Unless the Jets are willing to take a below-market offer, #7 would be the spot. If the teams did trade, I expect it would go like this:

Chargers send #7, #151
Saints send #11, #76, #229

Fair value for the jump is a bit less than the value of the Saints' original 3rd, so I'd expect something to go back. The Saints are missing their 4th and 5th round picks, so the swap of late round picks makes sense. And that leaves them with their premium picks (#32 and #42) to target help on defense.


Saints are dead set on defense and will take curtis samuel in rd 2 to not only do what mccaffrey can do, but also do a little bit of what cooks can do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The LBC


Global Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 34956
Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chargerbuckeye wrote:
Neutral wrote:
chargerbuckeye wrote:
8. CAR: McCaffrey


The persistence of this rumor makes me think the Chargers have a tentative offer to trade down with the Saints.

I get that the Panthers want to add another RB, and like the versatility McCaffrey offers, but I can't picture a better fit than in Sean Payton's offense. You just know that he's watched the tape and thinks about using him like another Reggie Bush or Darren Sproles. I don't know if they'd target a RB that early. But, they've been linked to multiple veteran FAs to pair with Mark Ingram, and have yet to sign anyone. I just get the feeling that Payton's going to pound the table for McCaffrey. And, if there's a legit threat that a division rival will take him right before they pick, he'll ask Loomis to trade up.

Unless the Jets are willing to take a below-market offer, #7 would be the spot. If the teams did trade, I expect it would go like this:

Chargers send #7, #151
Saints send #11, #76, #229

Fair value for the jump is a bit less than the value of the Saints' original 3rd, so I'd expect something to go back. The Saints are missing their 4th and 5th round picks, so the swap of late round picks makes sense. And that leaves them with their premium picks (#32 and #42) to target help on defense.


Saints are dead set on defense and will take curtis samuel in rd 2 to not only do what mccaffrey can do, but also do a little bit of what cooks can do.

Not that you've exactly had a successful track record with your guarantees and such as it pertains to the draft, but this flies in the face of much of what I've been hearing.

The Saints want to come away from Day 1 with a corner, but Payton covets McCaffrey. That said, if they trade up to #7, you can be damn sure it's for either Lattimore (not as likely, as from what I've heard they actually have Conley rated higher) or OJ Howard (this actually wouldn't shock me at all). All that said, the more likely scenario is they sit tight, hope that McCaffrey falls, and if he doesn't they'll take Conley and fish for a TE (this notion that they're just going to spend #32 or a 2nd round pick on a WR to replace Cooks after flipping him for #32 is pretty ridiculous - they'll sit tight till the 3rd or 4th and grab someone like Taywan Taylor who can fill the same role - TE is a greater likelihood of an early round pick than WR is based off the high number of targets Brees gives to his TE's and Fleener's relative inability to make an impact as a free agent signing last season).
_________________

MathMan wrote:
I think I'm obfuscating all over the place!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kyle21121


Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 10867
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

McCaffery is the real deal. This might sound crazy but I wouldn't be upset if we picked him. Probably unlikely but that's fine. Anyways I would prefer a trade down and if NO loves him and we can get a bit extra than that would be my obvious choice of what to do.

I've gone back and fourth a million times on who I want at #7. I think Jamal Adams makes the most sense. I like Hooker a lot and I think Allen would be a very good pick as well so I'm okay with the options. I guess Mike Williams or Davis I wouldn't be super thrilled to draft. I'm alright with Lattimore I guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
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