And the Chargers Select DE Jerry Hughes?!!
by MacDeezul on Mar 22, 2010 6:38 AM PDT
Email
PrintSan Diego Chargers: DE Jerry Hughes, TCU -- And speaking of late draft-board jumpers, teams are finding more and more to like about Hughes. His ridiculous speed and ability to get after the quarterback will prove indispensable to the Chargers, who have some key decisions to make with their front seven in the next few seasons.
I read the above and after my initial shock-and-awe I thought about this pick. 1st off let me say that I love this kid and what he did in his collegiate career. A DE that was converted from RB when he was brought to TCU and never looked back. He truly terrorized his opponents. Now with all that being said is he a 4-3 DE or a 3-4 OLB? Personnally I think he is a 4-3 DE - I do not think he is built to be a DE for the 3-4. Needless to say though it would be an interesting pick to say the least but it would mean a couple of things.
If we are going to pick him here, a worthy 1st rounder, then either our personnel managers have more faith in our front 3 than I do, or their plan is to solidify our defensive side of the ball as a priorty and pickup a RB somewhere in rounds 3 - 6. We still need a solid 3-down NT no matter what we do. A dominant NT in a 3-4 makes EVERYONE on the defense better - everyone. But no matter how much I like this kid, I just don't think this is the right move for our defense - you can only have so many LBs on the field, and we are already pretty deep here. Let's just say we do this in round 1, draft the best NT in Round 2, and pick up a solid DB in Round 3 (or vice-versa) then I say this draft works out, otherwise I think this is a bad play.
This FanPost was written by a member of the Bolts From The Blue community and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Bolts From The Blue editors or SB Nation.
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Worst Idea Ever
That would be to OLB stretches in 2 years! We have other needs.
At 6-2 and 255, he definately is not a 3-4 DE, unless he packs on 40 lbs soon. He projects pretty well as an OLB, with good speed (4.65 40, 1.63 10 yard split, both very good for an OLB). He is even a little undersized at OLB, but no more than English (but both Merriman and Phillips were closer to 270 coming out of college). There are very few 3-4 defenses at the college level, so all our OLBs will come from the 4-3 DE ranks, both Merriman and Phillips were DEs in college, so don’t be afraid of that conversion.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 22, 2010 7:49 AM PDT reply actions
Phillips was around 250 when he came out of purdue.
by BORTZ on Mar 22, 2010 11:58 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
That sounds about right.
Purdue always liked small DEs, that’s why they end up as OLBs (Roosevelt Colvin, Anthony Spencer, Chike Okeafor) in the pros.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
DE/OLB is low on our needs list
NT, RB, CB, WR, SS, DE/DT, blocking TE, backup RB, backup backup RB, backup backup QB… then we can think about an OLB.
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 Mar 22, 2010 10:22 AM PDT reply actions
Which sucks
Because this draft has so much more talent at that position that any of the last 4 or 5 have had. It really would have been nice if our need at OLB could have been timed with this draft.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
Well, if we hadn't taken English....
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 Mar 22, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
And had taken Michael Oher...
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
eh
I’m not sure Maualuga would have a position in our defense.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
Based on what I saw from Maualuga last season
I’d much rather have him over English. He plays with a lot more intensity and I’m pretty sure the Bengals used him as an OLB last year.
Just for fun, heres a few other names I would have rather AJ drafted at #16 instead of English:
Percy harvin, Jeremy Maclin, Donald brown, Hakeem Nicks, Chris Wells, Lesean McCoy, Glen Coffee. Not neccessarily in that order though.
by SoCalBoltFan on Mar 22, 2010 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh yeah
Austin Collie should be on that list as well.
by SoCalBoltFan on Mar 22, 2010 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Austin Collie
wouldn’t be what he is without Peyton taking the time to teach him.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
That may be true
but he did have a great rookie season. You do have a good point though, Peyton makes a lot of receivers look great.
by SoCalBoltFan on Mar 22, 2010 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
As opposed to Norv Turner, Charlie Joiner and Philip Rivers.
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 Mar 22, 2010 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes
Peyton specifically worked extra hard with Collie. From what I understand it was a big learning curve and they put in tons of extra time. Far beyond what any other tandem would do. Far beyond. Peyton was obsessed.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
I actually woundnt mind drafting this guy at #40, but he probably wont be their. And if he is we still have more pressing needs.
Like a upgrade at the 3rd CB spot, or at S, and of course NT and ROT. And I didnt even mention we need two new RBs.
50/50 he's there
But it would cause a logjam that would be at the expense of not helping other positions.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
Yep I agree
They only reason I would tolerate it, is it would cause a log jam at pass rusher. And all signs point to AJ and Merrimans people not getting in bed longterm.
The only legitimate knock on AJ
He hasn’t done anything I disagree with re: Merriman, but I think he’s taken the wrong tone.
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 Mar 22, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I dont understand what you are saying? Are you implying that AJ tone with Merriman is wrong? And if so wrong in what way?
AJs tone with everyone is bad, he’s a dick.
I'm saying
I think Merriman would be a franchise OLB if AJ would let him. But his unwillingness to give the guy any confidence in any future he may have with the team keeps him from being a leader. As far as tendering the guy and all, that’s cool.
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 Mar 22, 2010 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
While I could agree with this
Merriman hasnt done much of anything for awhile, so Im not sure AJ should instill any confidence in him. If his lack of job security is somehow depriving the team of leadership; then that might be worth it considering its not easy to write big checks for leaders who arent very good players.
Just ask some of the vets cut already this off season
The problem is
that he has been given (or so he says, and so says Acee at least) no reason to believe that if he does everything right he’ll be offered a competitive contract as a UFA. That’s gotta be demoralizing. I mean, he’s still playing for a payday, but you don’t tell your people, “Whatever you do, you ain’t getting no love here.”
If this is how AJ feels about a player, he owes it to the player and the team to trade him to someplace that will value him, for something between what he’s worth to AJ and what he’s worth to the new team. Here, he can’t live up to his potential: the GM all-but told him so.
I totally think AJ’s tactics are sound: up to this point, the problem has really been one of message-management. But now is the time that they should either trade him (before they have to franchise him), or at least send him a back-channel communique that they’re willing to play ball if he has a good season and asks for a reasonable amount of money. Of course, if this has happened, we probably wouldn’t know it.
Truth be told, I don’t think Merriman will be able to cash in on FA the way he wants. It’s highly unlikely that the CBA situation will be any more stable this time next year, and teams won’t want to shell out seven figures annually to a guy who’s missed a season and doesn’t get along with his GM if they’re looking down the barrel of a lockout. I think SD can have him on the cheap, even if he drops 15 sacks next year.
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 Mar 23, 2010 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions
*Cheap-ish.
It’s still a whole lot of money. But if he does become a stud once more, then hey.
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 Mar 23, 2010 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I understand what you are saying it is a valid point
And to a certain extent it does feel as if he is being punished for past actions.
Do you have that link
That shows the chart for players drafted in what round and their respective success rates. I cant find it. Thanks
maybe you mean this:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/nfl-draft/2006/draft-position
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
I wish
we could snag this guy but it’s not feasible unless we trade Merriman for a 2nd round pick, if that’s possible. Just knowing this guy will be available at #28 makes me want to slap AJ for his “nobody would ever guess this one” pick last year. Hughes is pretty much a faster version of English, maybe not as strong in the upper body, but provides a ton more value than English at pick 16.
come on
you can’t compare value of picks across draft years. That is way too speculative. The players available are different, our pick # is different. AJ felt we needed a OLB last year and he took the best one available at that spot. Some would say we should have taken Oher there, and maybe we should, but I don’t think our offense really needs a lot of improvement at this point. And Merriman was a huge question mark at that time (Still is in fact).
Also, Hughes is an inch shorter than English and like English is a risky pick because he will have to learn a new position. It is unlikely he ever dropped back into coverage as a DE and he will be required to do so as an OLB.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 23, 2010 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions
My point is that English was not a value pick, he was a major reach
and Hughes would provide significant value at our current picks in the top 40. I’m not questioning the reasoning behind picking an OLB, I’m questioning the slot he was taken in. English would have most likely been available in the 2nd round in last year’s draft.
Of course you can compare the value of picks across draft years as long as you assess the draft pick within the framework of that year. Relative to last year’s draft, English provided little value if any at pick 16. Relative to this year’s draft, Hughes provides a lot more than a little or no value in the late 1st/early 2nd.
And saying our offense doesn’t need improvement…well let’s just say we were the most unbalanced offensive team in the league (maybe the Jets). With practically a non-existent running game our offense was still top 10 because Rivers was prolific. If we had an above-average running game our offense would be the best thing since the “The Greatest show on Turf”.
by mikethemover on Mar 23, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
English
probably qualified as a minor reach. He was definitely the best 3-4 OLB available at the time.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
Probably...
if you define a minor reach as picking a player 1 round before he is projected to go. I call that a major reach.
by mikethemover on Mar 23, 2010 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions
English was projected as going anywhere from the late first to the early second
He had a lot of variability in his draft spot because he basically could only be drafting by a 3-4 team as a viable first rounder. To a 4-3 team, he would have been a major reach.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
Late 1st to late 2nd, so let's say middle of the 2nd round
which is nowhere close to top 16 talent. Clay Matthews, Oher, Harvin, Maclin, etc. would have all been better picks, and turned out to be better as of now.
by mikethemover on Mar 23, 2010 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Early 2nd, not late 2nd. Midway between late first and early second is not middle of the 2nd.
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 Mar 23, 2010 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Well at least we agree
that he was not top 16 talent.
by mikethemover on Mar 23, 2010 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Which is why we call it a minor reach.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 23, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
see below
for 16th overall, it’s major, maybe between minor and major
by mikethemover on Mar 23, 2010 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions
So things can only be minor reaches
if they happen in the later rounds?
What if a guy is projected to go ~#30 and you take him at #20? Minor or major?
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 23, 2010 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Major-ish
So, in English’s case he would be a major-ish to a major reach.
by mikethemover on Mar 23, 2010 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions
So is there a set number?
Like 10 spots too high in the first round is a major reach, 20 spots too high in the second, 30 spots too high in the third, etc.?
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 23, 2010 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it’s a feel-based thing where if Mike doesn’t like the pick it was a major reach and if he does like it the reach is minor if it’s a reach at all.
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 Mar 23, 2010 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Well if you look at the value of picks as extremely valueable in the very early round and increasingly less valueable at later rounds.
what i think Mike is trying to argue is that selecting a player a half-round sooner in the very early rounds is costlier than say taking a player a half-round sooner in the late rounds.
Meaning taking a player 16th when he could’ve gone 32nd hits harder than taking one 160th over 176th.
In other words, the “damn we should’ve gotten something for that effing pick” argument.
booty.
by OPIAQ on Mar 24, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes
OPIAQ took the words right out of my keyboard. I’m glad that someone could deduce my argument. And thanks Richard for the assumption, but you know what they say about assumptions…
by mikethemover on Mar 24, 2010 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions
And don't get it twisted
I never said I don’t like English, I think he’s going to be a solid pro for many years. Value was the point I was trying to drive home.
by mikethemover on Mar 24, 2010 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions
on the other hand
the market for draft picks is not perfectly effecient. That is, if you have the 16th and 48th pick, and you want to draft someone who is rated #32, you may need to take them at 16. Trading down is not always an option, you have to find someone who is willing to move up, and unless they want someone in that spot, they probably won’t want to move up.
AJ wanted to improve the pass rush, and English was arguably the best OLB on the board at that time (in retrospect maybe not, but at the time it was arguable). None of us really know how much interest there was in English from other teams, and none of us really know what the options were for trading down.
I think to some extent, AJ just decided to get the guy he wanted rather than mess around and overthink it too much.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 25, 2010 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
http://www.sportznutz.com/nfl/draft/draft_point_value_chart.htm
http://www.sportznutz.com/nfl/draft/draft_point_value_chart.htm
check it. you’ll see what I mean.
by mikethemover on Mar 24, 2010 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions
keep in mind that it's a rough estimation
but it gives you a reference point in terms of value
by mikethemover on Mar 24, 2010 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions
if AJ is going to pass up roughy 14-18 better players
for the 30-ish ranked player, then that’s just illogical. My theory is that he “reaches” for the players, a la Cromartie at #19, because he needs some chips at the bargaining table. Dolla, dolla, bills y’all
by mikethemover on Mar 24, 2010 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Cromartie was not a reach
Plenty of GMs were ready to take him if the Chargers didn’t.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
I think (health) risk is being confused for reach.
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 Mar 25, 2010 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Also
Matthews was rated higher than English at OLB and was projected to go mid to late 1st.
by mikethemover on Mar 23, 2010 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions
especially when it comes to the 1st round
if you reach for a player that’s projected to go 5-6 and you take him in the 4th round range then I would allow that to be called a minor reach
by mikethemover on Mar 23, 2010 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions
If he broke the starting lineup
then he wouldn’t have been a reach. But since he was relegated to team statistician and equipment manager boy for part of the year I would say that yes he was a reach when you consider the value of his 1st year – BUT this could change over his career.
He had 36 tackles (26 solo), 2 sacks and 1 forced fumble – compared to Lights Out who had 36 tackles (26 solo), and 4 sacks, S. Phillips had 59 tackles (47 solo), 7 sacks and 7 forced fumbles. So givin more playing time he might prove to be worthy of that “reach” afterall…… maybe? Heck stats wise it would appear that he outplayed Shawne Merriman.
You can't define whether a player was a reach or not
Based on how he plays after you draft him. Reaches are all based on picking someone based on where they are projected to go.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
That may be partially true.
However I player’s performance over the course of their career, or during their time on the team that picked them, can justify the selection. If he proves to be a perenial pro bowler, helps us win a superbowl, and is one of the top 10 performers at his position does his draft selection in the 1st round still mean we reached? Or does it mean we got a steal? I think its a matter of perspective.
Obviously
Whatever a player does during his career determines something, but I just don’t think it should determine whether he was a reach. Who might want to refer to it as “thought to be a reach at the time,” but you don’t want to be revisionist about it. A steal can be determined after the fact because you saw something that others didn’t. I don’t know that you can truly determine whether someone was a “steal” at draft time. Some analysts may use that term, but if it were me I’d give pause before thinking I was smarter than 31 GMs and their scouting staffs. I guess that kind of highlights a difference there. When you “reach”, its possible that only one GM though the value of the player was at that spot, when a player falls and someone calls it a “steal” there is probably a reason that player fell so far and was passed on by so many.
Anyway, I see a reach as in relation to perceived value at the time of the pick. You can still evaluate the pick after the fact, but it doesn’t change that perceived value.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
by Wonko on Mar 24, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oh, and one more thing
Another reason a reach is still a reach after you’ve seen that a player is actually worthy of that spot is that a reach implies that you could have done something else to get value on that player. You could have traded down or drafted him later. Either scenario involves lost value when the option to take a player early is taken over those other two.
This is also why I call what the Chargers did a minor reach. To get English at more proper value was to trade down and I’m not sure how far the Chargers could have traded down and still got him. And if they did just drop back a few spots would what they pick up be worth the opportunity cost of possibly missing out on the last true 3-4 OLB? His value for 3-4 teams was higher than his overall value at the time, so I think his public perceived value was slightly skewed.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
by Wonko on Mar 24, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oh so many reasons
1) Merriman, Phillips, English, Tucker, Applewhite… we’ve got too many guys there now. All will still be here next year unless they trade Merriman or decide not to franchise his youth away (I think they will franchise him and/or trade him, to mitigate the Great Deluge of 2011).
2) We really need a nose tackle. After the first round, or maybe early second, you have to settle.
3) We really need a running back, and should get one early if we want the best odds.
4) We could use a cornerback, and corners have a big drop-off after the top two rounds.
5) We have two picks in the top 40, and nothing else until #91. We can’t even fill all three of our early needs with what we have on the board.
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 Mar 23, 2010 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions
6) We’ve spent two first-rounders on that position in the last 5 years. Our highest two first-rounders, I might add.
7) We need a WR project, and while we could spend a late pick, early-round projects are better!
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 Mar 23, 2010 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Thank you
Just wish simpleton could’ve done it himself
by mikethemover on Mar 23, 2010 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
BFTB Apparel Store
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
