Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Chargers are on the Clock... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter 9664
- Start date
Air Coryell
Footballguy
Does anyone know if this is really true?The announcers of the game said it comes down to strength of scheduel and that the Pitt/Balt game will be a factor.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrok
Footballguy
In another thread the topic of the Bolts drafting a QB came up and some, including myself, think they should draft Manning. Some countered with them drafting offensive line help. I agree that the line needs bolstering, but how can you justify passing on Eli Manning. Many critics said he was better than Peyton as far as talent goes. If Brees is my starting QB, there is no way in hell I will pass up a chance on getting a guy named Manning as my QB. If Brees wins the job next spring, then fine. But if they draft a lineman and Manning goes to Oakland and turns out to be like his brother, or better... oh man. That would suck. Eli is big, has a very strong arm, and has a world of talent. course if San Diego doesn't end up with the first pick... then nevermind.
So was Ryan Leaf.If you put a rookie QB behind that offensive line, his career will go pretty much the same way Leaf's did, too.
Jayrok
Footballguy
That could be true. However, I would be willing to take that chance on Eli, as he could be a potential franchise player. Just too good a talent to pass up. Maybe he has a better work ethic than Leaf. I don't know, but it would suck if they passed on him and he turned out to be better than Peyton.
My offseason plans for the Chargers includes drafting Robert Gallery, and bringing in Mark Brunell and John Tait as free agent acquisitions.
BrentBlack
Footballguy
I have the same hopes for the Giants.
FairWarning
Footballguy
They need OL and DL. Not sure if that pick is sexy enough for them. They may have to trade down a few spots. Don't think they can draft a coach, however.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I think you also have to consider the GM/Coaching situation. If Marty doesn't right the ship by this time next year he's gone, and maybe the GM is too depending one what type of coach they want to replace him. Does Marty really have the time to develop a rookie QB? They have so many holes the most obvious answer would be to trade down, but CIN would tell you that's not always as easy as it sounds. I think the most glaring need is OL but DL is just as weak. I don't know what prospects are available at DL(especially DT) but I would thing SD would have to look long and hard at a DT. The nice thing about DL is they can step in and make an immediate impact, unlike most QB's. An improved DL sure would go a long way in making the young secondary look more mature. I say spend the draft picks on help in the trenches and try to lure a mediocre vet qb with a starting job. For the love of god, please, PLEASE, NO MORE $ or draft picks spent on WR or TE. I beg of you!
Goat Herders
Footballguy
Trade down and get Gallery, at least that's what Marty will be pushing for. You think a guy who used to ALWAYS finish above .500 wants to sit around and groom another QB? He doesn't have that much time...HERD
Jayrok
Footballguy
Ok, I'll buy that. I'm not a huge Bolt fan, but have always favored them (since the good ole Dan Fouts days) in the AFC. What about the possibility of signing free agent DL help instead of using a high draft choice? If they are going to spend the $$ on Brunell to come start a year or two for them, why not spend that money on a veteran DL or OL somewhere, and draft a skill position player? Warren Sapp is available...
Air Coryell
Footballguy
I'm assuming this strength of sched. is only determined by the record of the teams that they ahve played.Right now I have it scored as Win-Loss1) San Diego 130-126 2) OAK 132-124 3) ARZ 141- 1154) NYG 142- 114The Pitt/Balt game shouldn't have a factor as SD,OAK,ARZ all played both once.So the draft order should be1) SD2) OAK3) ARZ4) NYG
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice work! Call up ESPN and tell them!
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I'm not sure if they'll have Brunell type $ available either. I doubt very much they have Sapp $. I was actually thinking of just a solid journeymam QB that can throw the deep ball and at the very least stretch the defense with the straight line speed of Boston/Dwight. Brunell would be great as an instant starter, but you may be able to get the Griese/Blake/Dilfer's of the world for almost no salary cap hit if they have a shot at a starting job. One of them will get released for a younger/cheaper back up, they always do. I was a Brees apologist early in the season when the Chargers were dropping a ton of balls, but he had a melt down against the Ravens in game 3 and I really question his decision making from that game on. Since then, he's only played one good game and that was against the Jags. I suppose you could also argue he played well vs GB but that seems too far and few between to me. Of his 10 starts before today he had a qb rating better than 68 only three times(all losses). Of those three times he had a qb rating over 88 only once. Maybe he'll develop into a solid starter if surrounded by lots of talent one day but right now he's a back up that isn't surrounded by lots of talent. They need so much help on both OL and DL they should be spending BOTH the draft picks and the $ on them. But that's what I said last year before they signed Boston...... grrrrrr. I was happy they signed Neal last summer, however.Ok, I'll buy that. I'm not a huge Bolt fan, but have always favored them (since the good ole Dan Fouts days) in the AFC. What about the possibility of signing free agent DL help instead of using a high draft choice? If they are going to spend the $$ on Brunell to come start a year or two for them, why not spend that money on a veteran DL or OL somewhere, and draft a skill position player? Warren Sapp is available...
Air Coryell
Footballguy
No. I believe its the team with the weaker SOS gets the higher pick.You can see how Great Blue shows it herehttp://www.gbnreport.com/2004draftorder.htm
Right. The Chargers have it locked up. Everybody but ESPN has it figured out.
David Carr seemed ok behind an AWFUL line.Still, I agree with your assessment. Gallery is solid, though I'm not sure any O-line guy is worthy of the first pick in the draft (Tony Mandrich anyone?).Whoever gets brunell in Free Agency will cover a big hole with a solid player and allow themselves to get better in other ways in the draft.F
Top ten picks along the OL have done much better, in general, than top 10 picks at QB.This is from the Chargers message board at thenflforum.com:
(I've seen a similar analysis with 1st-round OL before somewhere -- I forgot where -- and the crux was that they usually end up being solid players.)
---------
Let's take a look at top 7 picks over the past 15 years.
2003
1) Carson Palmer - Too little information
7) Byron Leftwich - Looks very promising
2002
1) David Carr - Looks very promising
3) Joey Harrington - Too little information
2001
1) Michael Vick - Franchise QB
1999
1) Tim Couch - Bust with potential
2) Donovan McNabb - Franchise QB
3) Akili Smith - Bust
1998
1) Peyton Manning - Franchise QB
2) Ryan Leaf - Bust
1995
3) Steve McNair - Franchise QB
5) Kerry Collins - Good, not Great QB
1994
3) Heath Shuler - Bust
6) Trent Dilfer - Average QB
1993
1) Drew Bledsoe - Good, not great QB
2) Rick Mirer - Bust
1992
1) David Klingler - Bust
1990
1) Jeff George - Average
7) Andre Ware - Bust; Good Commentator
1989
1) Troy Aikman - Franchise QB
1987
1) Vinny Testaverde - Average QB (was a bust)
6) Kelly Stouffer - Bust
1986
1) Jim Everett - Average QB (and best comparable to Eli Manning IMO)
1983
1) John Elway - Franchise QB
7) Todd Blackledge - Bust
1982
4) Art Schlister - Bust
5) Jim McMahon - Good, not great QB
Bust - 10
Franchise QB - 6
Average - 4
Good, not great - 3
Looks very promising - 2
Too little information - 2
27 QB's selected.
6 Franchise Guys and 10 busts.
If you include the players that were busts with their initial team (Kerry Collins, Trent Dilfer, Vinny Testaverde) ... you could argue 13 out of 27 picks were busts.
All these guys looked like primetime athletes with big time ability. All looked like potential franchise QBs AND all had great measurables.
If you play percentages, you could argue that you should never select a QB with a top 7 pick.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Actually, I've read some anyalysis somewhere that OL is the safest pick in the first round. Fewer first round OL are busts than any other position. For every Mandarich there is a Munoz or Ogden. I'm still not happy with the first pick though. The only way it turns out well for SD is if one of the QB's has a KILLER combine and someone is willing to trade up. The only good part of having the first pick when there isn't a clear cut best player is they can have him signed before they make the selection.
Goat Herders
Footballguy
While I've seen nothing to indicate this will happen, I am going to run this up the flagpole...If the Giants give someone "young" and "fresh" a 4+ year deal as Coach, look for them to trade the #4 and a later pick up to #1. The Giants take Manning (thus keeping him from Oakland), the Raiders take Fitz or Rothlisberger, the Cards take whoever they want, and the Chargers - fingers crossed - hope Gallery or at worst Andrews fall to them at #4.HERD
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I could certainly live with that! Especially since it's unlikely NYG, OAK, or ARZ take Gallery before #4. Of course, the combine plays a huge part in all this. When players are rated as close as these are combine #'s and agents make a huge difference in draft position.
RoarinSonoran
Footballguy
People are welcome to try, but I've seen similar analyses for RB and OL and the results are quite different -- many fewer busts. (I think first-round WRs have a relatively high bust rate, though.)
RoarinSonoran
Footballguy
There should be a draft for cheerleaders, then a high bust rate wouldn't be all that problematic. 
Tau837
Footballguy
Actually, I wouldn't think so. RB, WR, TE, and OL are positions that are more heavily reliant on physical skills that can be directly measured and will directly translate to the NFL, such as speed, strength, leaping ability, etc.The physical skills required of a QB are less directly measurable to begin with. For example, a QB can be elite despite not having great speed or strength (relative to other NFL football players, anyway).
More importantly, QB is a position that requires more intelligence, decision making, leadership, and other qualities that are not directly measurable at the combine. Thus, evaluating QBs is logically a more inexact science than evaluating other positions, which is exactly Maurile's contention.
Fennis
Footballguy
OK, using your criteria:Running Backs as Top 8 picks
2001
LaDainian Tomlinson#5 Franchise RB
2000
Jamal Lewis #5 - Franchise RB
Thomas Jones #7 - Might get a shot next year with TB, but so far bust
1999
Edge #4 - Franchise RB
Ricky Williams #5 Franchise RB
1998
Curtis Enis #5 - Bust
1996
Lawrence Phillips #6 Bust
Tim Biakabutuka #8 Bust
1995
Ki-Jana Carter #1 - Bust
1994
Marshall Faulk #2 Franchise RB
1993
Garrison Hearst #3 - Solid RB, but not with Cardinals and not worthy of his draft position.
1990
Blair Thomas #2 - Bust
1989
Barry Sanders #3 - Franchise RB
Tim Worley #7 - Bust
1987
Alonzo Highsmith #3 - eh
Brent Fullwood #4 - Bust
1983
Eric Dickerson #2 - Franchise RB
Curt Warner #3 Franchise RB
Michael Haddix #8 Bust
1982
Darin Nelson #3 - long career, but never broke 1000 yards
So this tells me of the 19 Running Backs drafted in the Top 8 picks since 1982, 9 (counting Hearst) were worthy of their draft position. So sticking to your logic, statistically no one should draft a RB either. I am sure WRs do worse than RBs.
That being said if I were the Chargers I would trade down anyway. I don't like either QB and if they can get some value it will be worth it. Of Course, Brees is not the answer at QB.
Air Coryell
Footballguy
But you didnt throw out the Penn St. RBs that are always busts 
The Chargers did the right thing in 2001 trading down and getting LT. I fully expect them to do the same again. This is a team with MANY holes. They need 2 new OT, a #2WR, plus some help at LB and D-line.I have to assume that we wont draft any DB as we've drafted so many over the last 2 drafts.Eli, Peyton, or Archie Manning will not fix what is wrong with this team. To draft a rookie QB it will take 2-3 years before they can even contribute. You have LT, build around him. He is the best RB in the game. This team could win, but he can't do it by himself. Fix the O-line, fix the defense. Get a guy who won't turn it over and and keep some of the pressure off LT.
The Chargers did the right thing in 2001 trading down and getting LT. I fully expect them to do the same again. This is a team with MANY holes. They need 2 new OT, a #2WR, plus some help at LB and D-line.I have to assume that we wont draft any DB as we've drafted so many over the last 2 drafts.Eli, Peyton, or Archie Manning will not fix what is wrong with this team. To draft a rookie QB it will take 2-3 years before they can even contribute. You have LT, build around him. He is the best RB in the game. This team could win, but he can't do it by himself. Fix the O-line, fix the defense. Get a guy who won't turn it over and and keep some of the pressure off LT.
Last edited by a moderator:
No way - I believe the Giants will ride Collins for the next 4-5 years. They need to add some defensive secondary help in a bad way, and they need a younf back - I wouldn't be surprised to see them stick with their spot and take the best available runner or trade down to stock some picks and add a few pieces.
Thanks for taking the time to do that. The bust rate was higher than I would have expected, but still not as bad as for the QBs.For QBs, there were 6 franchise QBs and 10 busts.For RBs, there were 9 franchise RBs (counting Hearst) and 9 busts. (Hearst gained over 1,000 yards for the Cardinals, and had over 1,000 yards from scrimmage in all six of his non-injury seasons before this year; so I think it's fair to say he was worth his draft position.)So with RBs, 9 out of 19 were worth their draft position. With QBs, 6 out of 27 were. QBs appear to be riskier picks by that measure.
tombonneau
Footballguy
I disagree. Dilfer won a SB with Ogden protecting his blind side. A rock at LT is huge. It's harder to find Ogdens than it is competent QBs who can do enough to win.
Pace also played a huge role in the Rams' ascent to prominence.Still, a franchise QB can certainly make a difference as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
I'm not going to go back to the days of leather helmets, but here are all the OL taken in the top 8 picks since 1990;J.Gross(CAR)03M.Williams(BUF)02B.McKinnie(MIN)02L.Davis(ARZ)01C.Samuals(WAS)00K.Turley(NO)98O.Pace(STL)97W.Jones(SEA)97J.Ogden(BAL)96T.Boselli(JAX)95W.Roaf(NO)93B.Whitfield(ATL)92C.McRae(TB)91A.Davis(PHI)91Very few bust picks there. Quite a few I'd consider studs.
True, but Carolina also upgraded at RB and QB too. You can't discount S. Davis or Delhomme, just as you can't discount Gross' impact. Additionally, Warner had a big role in the rise to prominence of the Rams, just as Pace did.A QB who can keep defenses honest (and hit LT2 with a simple screen pass, hello Drew Brees) can help LT2 just as a giant tackle can.I don't think it's as easy as "OL or QB"? What else is there in free agency? In the rest of the draft? How well would Manning/B-Roth or Gallery adapt to the pro game? How soon can they make an impact? What can be had if the Chargers were to trade down? It looks like there's more in the way of stud O-Tackles in FA than there are stud QB's...
