1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!
    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers.
    We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Baggage

Discussion in 'NFL Draft' started by Fossil, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. Fossil

    Fossil BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    674
    Ratings:
    +318
    Hate dangling in the wind like this so was thinking about "team baggage" that may make top shelf GMs or HCs think twice about SD.
    Some baggage is good, some not so good. All teams have some, but here's a few of ours off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more.

    Ownership: Was Archie right?
    Offense: Keep Norv's offense or retool? If retool, will ownership give new HC/OC a year to get it installed and running?
    RM: Is he the kind of back you can build a running attack around?
    PR: Does he limit what type of offense a new HC might want to run?
    Defense: Young, physical, aggressive.
    Defense: It's 3/4 so might keep a 4/3 DC from making the leap to Boltville?
    Pagano: Did some good work in 2012
    Pagano: Ifs ownership insists he stays, does that keep GMs or HCs with specific defensive ideas away?
    San Diego, the city: Cool place to live, sunny, laid back
    San Diego, the city: Not exactly a place where sports legacies are born.
     
  2. Bolts4lyfe

    Bolts4lyfe BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,733
    Ratings:
    +837
    I'd imagine coaching the Chargers is one of the more appealing jobs in the league. Still a lot of talent with only some tweaking to do on the o line and secondary
     
  3. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,391
    Ratings:
    +1,075
    Not sure all of these are questions, but I numbered them to make them a little easier to address individually.

    1. In a roundabout way maybe, but even then you have to take into consideration everything that was here when Archie was looking at us (a team in the same conference as his other son, with a coach that couldn't get it done in the playoffs who preached a run-heavy approach, and had one of the best RB's the league has ever seen on the roster). Honestly, Archie said what he said because he couldn't say the things that he really meant. One of those is that this wasn't a "large enough market" for his son... and then you have to consider that as long as LT was on the roster, he'd be the top face of the franchise and not Archie's boy. (Now don't eat me alive for this San Diegans) If this team was operating out of Los Angeles at that time, we wouldn't have heard a damn thing coming out of Archie's mouth aside from "We can't wait to get to work on getting this team to a Super Bowl".

    2. I have no problem with keeping the Coryell, thing is, what Norv was calling towards the end was such a bastardized version of the Coryell that it's hardly comparable. Do I believe that the Coryell is the absolute best system Rivers could operate in? No; top 2 or 3 maybe, but I think you stick him in a power-running variant of a West Coast Offense like San Francisco runs (not the pure Walsh WCO that requires the QB to be able to bootleg with the pocket often) is darn near tailor made for Phil. I look at it this way, unless we bring Chudzinski back or promote from within the boys on offense are going to need to learn a new playbook. For the wideouts that's memorizing new plays and perhaps swallowing some new concepts, but for any of them that can run a full route-tree that shouldn't be too much work. We're already needing to retool the OL, so new guys are going to have to learn something anyway. And Rivers, (assumedly) Mathews, Gates, and Hardwick are all bright guys - a new system might actually be a breath of fresh air for them.

    3. I'd argue you don't build around a back period. If you get one who proves to have consistent special ability, yes, you run him for all he's worth until he starts to show signs of wear on the tires or you have a younger, comparable option behind him on the depth chart, but this is a pass-oriented league at this point. And we've been averaging 11 underclassmen runners per year declaring for the draft the past couple years; a trend I don't see changing. The supply for running backs will always be there - that's why unless you're getting Adrian Peterson as a prospect, spending 1st round picks on RB's is asinine, and "building your team" around one isn't terribly smart because of their shorter "league lifespan" compared to other positions.

    4. Can he run every offense under the sun? No. So he limits us in that sense. Is he still a better option than 70+% of the starting QB's in this league? Yes. Are there better options available on the market or in the upcoming draft? HELL no! Is it at all financially prudent to release or trade him any time in the next two seasons? Again, hell no - at least unless you want to wipe out more than 2/3 of what available cap space we would have on a "dead money" cap hit this year.

    5. Depends on the 4-3 defensive-minded coach. Some of them are very much tied to their own schemes (e.g. Lovie Smith and the Tampa/Cover-2). Some aren't (e.g. Nolan, Zimmer, etc). Personal opinion here, but one grounded in analytic thought, trying to force a switch to a 4-3 from our current system would be expensive and flat out dumb. I could see using more of a fluid hybrid defensive shape similar to what Seattle and Baltimore use, as with the increased prevalence of passing in this league teams are forced to operate out of a base nickel package more often. But look across the top defenses in the league, how many 4-3 formations do you actually see? And what's one constant you see on each on of them? A high-end RDE - and even better-than-just-good players at that positions are harder to find than 3-4 rush LB's or "LEO's" in the hybrid schemes like Seattle's, because there are far more undersized, "tweener" guys with great explosion in college football than there are guys with similar attributes and the size/girth/length to play with a hand in the dirt and lined up directly over the longer, more athletic LT's that are the trend in the league right now. You want even an above average RDE with any track record of high-end product in free agency, be prepared to pay in excess of $10-12 million annual for them as that's the current benchmark and it's not going down any time soon.

    6. Yes he did. There are some schematic issues I take with how we operated (I'm still a little hesitant about playing bend-but-don't-break without at least showing some more aggression at the LOS or blitzing from the Back 8 more often. But some of that may be the physical deficiencies of an aging boundary CB like Jammer or the presence of a competent SS (as Bigby bit on, a fair guestimate, at least 80% of the play-action fakes he saw). I like Pags, but if a coach is brought in who was directly responsible (i.e. coordinator or built/called the plays for) a defense that performed at a higher level than ours and he wants his guy over Pags, I'm not tied to John (Ray Horton could be an example of this).

    7. It could, and that does worry me a bit. Coaches are creatures of habit, especially guys who have been the head cheese before. They have assistants they trust and know and thus want to keep in their employ if at all possible - this was one of the reasons why folks were saying Andy Reid was hesitant to take a year off for himself, because he felt a responsibility to some of his (former) assistants to not leave them stuck without employment. I think the desire to keep Pagano is a contributing factor to why Dean has been insistent he doesn't want a retread (former HC's have a greater chance of having assistants they're tied to/fond of), whereas first time HC's will tend to favor what will make their transition the easier so long as it meshes with their overall vision/plan.

    8. Yeah. Could do with a higher female to male ratio (bloody "Man Diego"), but there are certainly less habitable locations that have NFL teams (Oakland, anyone? Detroit? Indianapolis?).

    9. Tony Gwynn deserved better, damn it. I'm an Angels fan and even I'll wholeheartedly admit that.
     
  4. Fossil

    Fossil BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    674
    Ratings:
    +318
    Good thoughts LBC. Dovetailing all these considerations with various GM/HC combos can't be easy.
    Overall, SD is and should be ranked pretty high for GMs or HCs, not so much for sports fans.
    FWIW: Unless Archie publishes an autobiography, we'll probably never really know entierly why he orchestrated Eli's draft day move. I agree with you about the market size of the Giants, but still think "eptitude" of Spanos ownership might have factored in that consideration. Wonder would Archie have pulled the plug on 49ers, Falcons, or Vikings had they drafted Eli? They're smaller markets than SD.
    Edit: Just read on the other board that we're interviewing Lovie, who seems pretty well enamored with the Tampa Two 4-3. Don't know what to think, now.
     
  5. Ikeman83

    Ikeman83 Werter Pöbel

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Ratings:
    +629
    What does this have to do with the draft?
     
  6. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,391
    Ratings:
    +1,075
    Let's be honest... sometimes it's nice to be able to have discussion about several aspects of the team moving forward without it being convoluted with the usual "garble garble Dean and his kid'll find a way to screw it up" junk.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page