Serious Business: 2/10 Chargers Links

by Richard Wade on Feb 10, 2010 3:00 AM PST in Daily Links Comment 20 comments

FO Awards Voting Extended Another Week!
If you have not voted in the awards, this is your chance to do so. You still have a chance to win a prize: One of the three free DVDs of the movie BIG FAN will be given to someone who votes in this second week of balloting.

Scouts Inc.: The 2010 offseason needs list for every AFC team
Top needs: 1. RB: It is possible that both LaDainian Tomlinson and Darren Sproles could be gone (LT because he has no role and Sproles because he is a potential free agent)? The Chargers need Sproles to accept a multiyear deal, and then they still need a bigger and more physical complementary back, who won't be easy to find.

Johnson living nightmare
The last two weeks have been a nightmare for Travis Johnson after his four-year old daughter Zoe suffered a stroke in mid-January. She remains hospitalized.

Greatness of L.T. is forgotten too soon - SignOnSanDiego.com
One of the best descriptive quotes ever came from a member of the Chargers organization I couldn’t identify because I wasn’t supposed to be talking to him. Of Tomlinson playing through a severe rib injury in 2005, this person recalled Tomlinson being so bruised that it prompted concern from teammates and other team personnel.

“LT, he’s a dark-skinned brother,” said the man, who is African-American. “If you can see he’s purple, that’s bad.”

0 recs | Comment 20 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not a draftnik, apparently

The Chargers need Sproles to accept a multiyear deal, and then they still need a bigger and more physical complementary back, who won’t be easy to find.

Really? Because it seems to me that this draft is deep with big, physical complementary backs. There are a bunch of good running backs who are all around 230-240 and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Chargers take one or more of them.

by CABurrito on Feb 10, 2010 10:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the thinking there is

That while there are a number of prospects that meet that description (more than usual), but it still isn’t likely that they’ll all pan out. Big backs like that are rare in the NFL and seem very injury prone, so even with a dearth of prospects it still won’t be easy to find.

I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.

Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't

by Wonko on Feb 10, 2010 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Vocab lesson.

A dearth is a scarcity. Perhaps you were looking for “abundance” instead?

But yeah, I agree. Unless we end up with a comp pick that isn’t produced by creating a vacuum (dearth) at one of our key positions, we’re going to have to take a crapshoot (and even if so, we just get two crapshoots). But such a crapshoot will be available at #28 or #60.

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Feb 10, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or perhaps he meant “without a dearth of prospects.”

Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate

by Richard Wade on Feb 10, 2010 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That would do it too.

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Feb 10, 2010 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Besides, I misused the term “comp pick” in my reply.

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Feb 10, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If I read this blog enough...

Do I get a college credit in English?

Oh internet, what a wicked web you weave.

by Mad_Villain on Feb 10, 2010 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

That's one of the best things about BftB

Anything is up for an argument, including spelling/grammar/semantics.

Yes, we like to nitpick.

creanium.net
Bolts from the Blue

by creanium on Feb 11, 2010 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose

Probably true, but then I think you could say that about quality players at any position.

I think its also odd they way that the phrased it as “a complementary back” for Sproles. The reality is that sproles is the complement, and what’s needed is a new workhorse back, or two who can split the load.

It will be interesting to see what the Bolts do about running back. Will they put all their eggs in one basket any draft only one, or will they increase their chances of finding a quality player by taking more than one?

by CABurrito on Feb 10, 2010 11:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

If the Chargers do re-sign Sproles

Then he likely won’t be the complimentary back, at least for 2010. He’ll be the more knowledgeable back about both the playbook and blitz pickup responsibilities. They’ll most likely need him out there more than the rookie or other newcomer that they bring in. That may change part of the way through 2010, but probably not by the start of the regular season.

Also, I think we need to get past the idea of a “workhorse” back. What’s the point of having such a back when there just aren’t enough carries in the offense to take advantage of a workhorse back’s skills? That’s not to say they can’t use a big back who can finish runs and help move the chains, but just that it won’t fit the Chargers if he needs to 25 carries to take advantage of his skill set. The key to the next Chargers running back (or backs, plural) is someone that can do the little things needed for a back (goal line carries, blitz pickup, sell the play-action, catch the ball in the flat or on screens, finish runs well, don’t fumble) and hopefully have some speed/power/shiftiness to make big plays.

I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.

Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't

by Wonko on Feb 10, 2010 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

While I agree

that there are probably not 25 carries a game for “workhorse back” in this offense. It should be noted that LT had 5 games with 20 carries or more and 9 games with 15 carries or more this season, and that was with him producing little to nothing with those carries (and not playing in three games). If a back comes in and is being productive with the carries he is getting I think an average of 18 to 22 carries a game is not out of the question.

by JeromeB on Feb 10, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

18 to 22

Seems to me the higher end for a back, where the Chargers have taken a nice lead and are trying to run down the clock. I’d like to hope that occurs often, but it wouldn’t seem exactly typical of the Chargers #1 back. I’m also thinking that a more productive back would make the offense more efficient and the big play capability better so that you’re not in the pattern of: run poorly on first down, try to pick some yardage (run or pass) on 2nd down, get the 1st down on 3rd down. Repeat. Where the #1 back gets a bunch of crappy carries that are basically just setting up play action. You’d like to get into a rhythm where you’d start having some good gains from the run on first and second down and open up some extra plays to do more than just the minimum that you need to keep the drive alive.

I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.

Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't

by Wonko on Feb 10, 2010 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I have to agree with Jerome, there are certainly carries to be had even in this offense if a back can be productive. While I agree that we don’t need a guy to pound the rock 30+ times a game, I think its perfectly reasonable to expect a 20 carry game even with Rivers throwing it all over the field. Having Sproles carry that kinda load is a waste of his talents and probably detrimental to the team.

If we cut through all this talk it really becomes clear that what they need is a good new running back (or backs). He doesn’t necessarily need to be a bruiser or a speedster but he has to be able to be productive in order to give at least the threat of balance back to the offense and to takeover the burden of running between the tackles and at the goal line.

by CABurrito on Feb 10, 2010 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I never said Sproles would carry it twenty times

But if you increase him to 15 to 18, plus the downs where we are passing and then mix in the new guy with another 10 or so, you are basically getting to the number of carries for a typical Charger offensive game.

I mean, the other alternative is to suffer on pass protection or limit the play calls you can make with the new guy out. I prefer to keep the offense going full bore as much as possible.

I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.

Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't

by Wonko on Feb 10, 2010 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

*

limit the play calls you can make with the new guy out there.

I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.

Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't

by Wonko on Feb 10, 2010 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not much difference between 15-18 carries and 20. If Sproles could handle and be productive running it that I’d be all for it, but he hasn’t shown that he can over the course of a season.

As for pass protection, Sproles is great, but I also have to assume that anyone they bring in would also be good at that and brought up to speed on the pass pro rules. Between mini camp, training camp and preseason you have to think that even a rookie could figure it out. Pass pro can be complicated but its not the same learning curve as, say, throwing a rookie QB out there.

by CABurrito on Feb 10, 2010 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think they can afford Sproles

but if they can, I would be happy with Sproles getting only 5 -10 carries a game and catching a few balls out of the backfield. To me that is the role he is most suited for, I don’t think that they should over use him just because they may overpay him.

by JeromeB on Feb 10, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think so either

But the supposition was that they would re-sign Sproles so I was concocting a scenario around that.

I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.

Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't

by Wonko on Feb 10, 2010 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Keep in mind

Sproles is probably looking for close to starting back money. If you’re willing to pay that (which the Chargers would be if they re-sign him), it seems likely that they are also willing to have him as their primary (and not complimentary) back.

I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.

Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't

by Wonko on Feb 10, 2010 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They were willing to pay him almost 7 million last year for his complementary role. And if they do sign him to a long term deal they’ll likely be paying less than that. He’ll get good money and be worth it, but I doubt he’ll be leading the team in rushing attempts next year.

by CABurrito on Feb 10, 2010 1:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs