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!
    Dismiss Notice

UT Sullivan chat

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by Shamrock, Apr 30, 2007.

  1. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    :icon_eek: :icon_eek: :icon_eek:


    UT Sullivan chat

    At least those idiots moderated this one.......

    A whole bunch of "why not Jarrett" questions. Amazing.

    This one cracks me up:
    Even if someone liked Pos, he would be an ILB in the 3-4.

    Yeah, Tim. You don't understand the 3-4. That's obvious. Not only could we see that we needed a safety that is multi-talented, but Buddy Nix came and spelled that out to the media after the pick. Does Buddy have to write it down for you, too?

    No, Tim. He wasn't that good in pass coverage. He had a couple good games this year, and that was all. Get over it.

    Does that mean you are unprepared to do your job? Fans have to do it for you?

    Then you were the only one who didn't see it.

    Definitive? They were developed by a numbers guy. Maybe you should Google it. I think learning how trades are conducted should be a prerequisite to commenting publically about them. BTW: AJ may say he doesn't use the value chart, but his trade of Eli and this Weddle deal come remarkedly close to the chart slot value.

    Or, maybe AJ values having Turner for '07 and getting a comp pick in '09 - or tag and trade in '08. C'mon Tim .... think !!!

    Okay. You get a point for one funny line.

    Can you count? It was a numbers game. We needed at least one, and the 7th rounder was a value pick.

    Damn. Actual real logic shows though .....

    Tim .... want to know what I think?
     
  2. PhillyChargerFan

    PhillyChargerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,961
    Ratings:
    +288
    What kills me is when the poster talks about the draft value chart then Sullivan says well I don't know, so the poster comes back with the values, Sullivan discounts it :no:
     
  3. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    Sullivan should read this article ....

    Former Cowboys exec behind draft value chart - Fort Worth Star-Telegram

     
  4. sdchrger

    sdchrger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,025
    Ratings:
    +820
    What kind of egomaniac writes his own little comments throughout an article? :no: :icon_huh: :icon_shrug: :unsure:
     
  5. Shamrock

    Shamrock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,922
    Ratings:
    +1,243
    Those two comments (and the various Jarrett discussions in Sullivan's chat) got me thinking ...... (always dangerous ) ...... specifically on the "bpa (best player available) at position of need" arguement.

    The Chargers selected at bpa - that has the specific skill set that fits the Chargers needs - at a position of need. Too many posters and pundits look at the next best rated player on some list, and don't understand why that player was passed over for the player SD selected.

    Last year, people wondered why SD would pass over Winston or Colledge in favor of McNeill. Disregarding my last year's comments pre-draft on McNeill :)p) it's easy to see why SD wouldn't take E. Winston or Colledge. Both fit the zone blocking scheme. We're a power running team primarily.

    Similar with Sullivan's comments on Pos. Pos is listed as an OLB, but would become an ILB in a 3-4. Again, regardless whether we do or don't like Pos, we don't know if he was even on AJ's board because of the required transition to a similar, but still different position.

    Jarrett wasn't the type of WR we needed. He's big and slow. We have red zone targets that have similar traits to him and ours are faster players.

    I thought S. Smith might have been a good value for the type of WR we needed, if we got him in the 2nd round. It turns out that Buster Davis is that type of WR. What we don't know are all the background interviews, and history with a player and our FO and scouts. SD said they had been tracking Davis for years. In reflection, Davis' skill set, character, and overall make-up are truly fits for what this offense needs. Yes, he still has to produce on the field, but he's the "bpa with specific traits that matches up to our position of need."

    That same arguement can be made for Weddle, regardless of what Sullivan and others believe and perceive the need to be a "smash mouth" safety, or a "centerfielder" safety. Those two distinctly different type safeties come with limitations to their overall game. Weddle gives SD the flexibility to do many things in the secondary, and keep the defense unpredictable. Electric Chair correctly recognized this pre-draft, and specifically tagged Weddle as the one who fit what SD needed. I give him props for that assessment.

    Like Cromartie and McNeill, Anthony Waters is a bit of a medical risk. Yet, again, he fits a need. We needed depth at ILB, and adding him - if he regains 100% health - not only fills depth, but gives us a playmaking ILB.

    The media and posters get locked into past players strengths, and look for replacements that compare to those players. People see how Edwards played the WILB, and form an opinion that SD needs that type of LB. People remember Rodney, and want a SS like him. Neither of those two are true fits for this style of defense. Focusing on their skills breeds limitations into the type of player that would succeed at that LB or safety spot on the field.

    Kirwan always talks about "replacing talent for talent" and I think it's a narrow concept. He (and many posters I've seen quoting something like that) use it as a specific comment towards an individual player and their skill set. It suggests a system that is stagnant in scheme by replacing "like" players year after year. That's never been the case with any team over time. We may have lost experience at ILB with the departure of Godfrey and Edwards, but we gained speed with both their replacements and more power/explosion at WILB in Wilhelm and possibly Waters. We lost some P/E with Kiel's departure, but grew the flexibility and ball skills with Weddle's entrance. The skill sets are different, and the tweaks in scheme this season should reflect those changes.
     

Share This Page