He's struggled with injuries, but I would happily send a 4th round pick to them for Williams.
Bengals OT Jonah Williams requests trade
Moderator: wab
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29880
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 130 times
- Been thanked: 1995 times
- Arkansasbear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 4907
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
- Has thanked: 471 times
- Been thanked: 685 times
Injuries are a big issue, but when he's out there, he's solid. I agree about a 4th is as high as I'd go.
-
- Pro Bowler
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:49 pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
Isn't he requesting a trade because he doesn't want to move to the right side after they signed Brown to plat LT? Do we want to move B. Jones to the right and then sign this recently injured player to a new contract for $20M+ per year?
- IotaNet
- MVP
- Posts: 1513
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:04 am
- Location: Minneapolis (Chicago Native)
- Has thanked: 284 times
- Been thanked: 212 times
Yes, plus hasn’t Burrow been running for his life the last couple of years? Do we really want to sign someone from THAT O-line?The Kaiser wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:00 am Isn't he requesting a trade because he doesn't want to move to the right side after they signed Brown to plat LT? Do we want to move B. Jones to the right and then sign this recently injured player to a new contract for $20M+ per year?
“Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego falls with it.”
- Colin Powell
- Colin Powell
-
- Pro Bowler
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:49 pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
Exactly. There's a reason that the Bengals went out and signed a replacement. I'd rather see what Braxton develops into than sign a guy who finished on IR, missed his entire rookie season with injuries and has been a bottom half of the league starting LT for the last three years.IotaNet wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:03 amYes, plus hasn’t Burrow been running for his life the last couple of years? Do we really want to sign someone from THAT O-line?The Kaiser wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:00 am Isn't he requesting a trade because he doesn't want to move to the right side after they signed Brown to plat LT? Do we want to move B. Jones to the right and then sign this recently injured player to a new contract for $20M+ per year?
- Bears Whiskey Nut
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 11038
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
- Location: Oak Park, IL
- Has thanked: 79 times
- Been thanked: 517 times
Burrow has been running for his life because players like Williams have been injured. I think the Bengals OL was more beat-up and injury ridden than the Bears last year, and that's a tall order. If he can stay healthy, I agree that he's worth a 4th or 5th. He's only 25, so there's that as well.
- Bears Whiskey Nut
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 11038
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
- Location: Oak Park, IL
- Has thanked: 79 times
- Been thanked: 517 times
He was selected 11th in the 2019 draft, so he has to have some talent. His RAS score was relatively low, and he was projected better as a G than a T. He scored a 39 on the Wonderlic for whatever that's worth.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29880
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 130 times
- Been thanked: 1995 times
No, they were considering moving him inside to guard. They have Collins at RT.The Kaiser wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:00 am Isn't he requesting a trade because he doesn't want to move to the right side after they signed Brown to plat LT? Do we want to move B. Jones to the right and then sign this recently injured player to a new contract for $20M+ per year?
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6869
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 388 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
EricTighe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:12 am Nice article regarding arm length and it's realistic importance.
https://www.pff.com/news/does-arm-length-affect-ot-play
You missed this.
We discussed this article at length last year.
Short version: they asked the wrong question and came up with results that don't say what people think they say.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- Yogi da Bear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2584
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
- Has thanked: 222 times
- Been thanked: 402 times
I'm not saying whether the article is right or wrong, but one thing in it is mistaken. It says to look at how much 3/4 of an inch is, but that's not really the case. The arm length is of one arm, so you're really looking at the difference of an inch and half. Not sure it makes much difference. Just thought I'd mention it.EricTighe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:12 am Nice article regarding arm length and it's realistic importance.
https://www.pff.com/news/does-arm-length-affect-ot-play
- IE
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12500
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
- Location: Plymouth, MI
- Has thanked: 523 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
- Contact:
I think that discussion was with me, and I'm assuming your short conclusion is is between you and the mouse in your pocket.Moriarty wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:44 amEricTighe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:12 am Nice article regarding arm length and it's realistic importance.
https://www.pff.com/news/does-arm-length-affect-ot-play
You missed this.
We discussed this article at length last year.
Short version: they asked the wrong question and came up with results that don't say what people think they say.
Because I'm on board with the article and I believe that arm length is not a must-have determining success factor at OT. I believe (strongly) that the measure is deterministic - that guys that size and athletic "tend" to have longer arms in the first place. And then the ones with more compact bodies or shorter arms are moved inside as they ascend to make room for longer-armed guys on the outside based on an assumption about performance that isn't necessarily true. So *conclusions* are drawn from a selected pool and not a natural pool.
So even though reality does say that more OTs have long arms than not, I believe it is a fallacy of correlation and causation to assert that length is a requirement or would be a sole reason for a guy's success. If it was a requirement, then NO good OTs would have shorter arms. So it is false. There have been a smaller numbers of OTs with shorter arms who have done very well in the NFL. It isn't small in number because they're outliers in terms of talent - they're outliers by virtue of their much smaller number in a large pool of big fellas who have been arbitrarily turned into OTs over time. I have no doubt there are a number of NFL G who would be great at OT but are pigeon-holed by assumptions AND the accumulation of game experience that makes people good at what they practice.
There is rationale why it is more important to have long arms in terms of how OTs use their arms. But IF there are examples of HOF OTs with short arms, that means it is not a requirement, there are good techniques and abilities that compensate, and if the talent is there it doesn't matter. It is just a logical fact.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
-
- Player of the Month
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:29 am
- Has thanked: 16 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
I've never witnessed anyone argue arm length before.....quite interesting.....lol
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6869
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 388 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
But a useful question is not "are there some nonzero amount of exceptions to the rule?". Of course there are.IE wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:53 amI think that discussion was with me, and I'm assuming your short conclusion is is between you and the mouse in your pocket.
Because I'm on board with the article and I believe that arm length is not a must-have determining success factor at OT. I believe (strongly) that the measure is deterministic - that guys that size and athletic "tend" to have longer arms in the first place. And then the ones with more compact bodies or shorter arms are moved inside as they ascend to make room for longer-armed guys on the outside based on an assumption about performance that isn't necessarily true. So *conclusions* are drawn from a selected pool and not a natural pool.
So even though reality does say that more OTs have long arms than not, I believe it is a fallacy of correlation and causation to assert that length is a requirement or would be a sole reason for a guy's success. If it was a requirement, then NO good OTs would have shorter arms. So it is false. There have been a smaller numbers of OTs with shorter arms who have done very well in the NFL. It isn't small in number because they're outliers in terms of talent - they're outliers by virtue of their much smaller number in a large pool of big fellas who have been arbitrarily turned into OTs over time. I have no doubt there are a number of NFL G who would be great at OT but are pigeon-holed by assumptions AND the accumulation of game experience that makes people good at what they practice.
There is rationale why it is more important to have long arms in terms of how OTs use their arms. But IF there are examples of HOF OTs with short arms, that means it is not a requirement, there are good techniques and abilities that compensate, and if the talent is there it doesn't matter. It is just a logical fact.
Just like speed obviously matters a lot at CB, but I'm sure there's at least 1 decent slow CB out there.
What you want to know is "Do longer armed prospects succeed more often than shorter and by how much?"
You have to start with some pool of prospects, classify arms, and then look at success rates, based on some metric.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- IE
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12500
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
- Location: Plymouth, MI
- Has thanked: 523 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
- Contact:
It isn't just one exception. But even if it was - If you have a theory about how things work and I can prove it false by example... it is false. Demonstrably.Moriarty wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:00 pmBut a useful question is not "are there some nonzero amount of exceptions to the rule?". Of course there are.IE wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:53 am
I think that discussion was with me, and I'm assuming your short conclusion is is between you and the mouse in your pocket.
Because I'm on board with the article and I believe that arm length is not a must-have determining success factor at OT. I believe (strongly) that the measure is deterministic - that guys that size and athletic "tend" to have longer arms in the first place. And then the ones with more compact bodies or shorter arms are moved inside as they ascend to make room for longer-armed guys on the outside based on an assumption about performance that isn't necessarily true. So *conclusions* are drawn from a selected pool and not a natural pool.
So even though reality does say that more OTs have long arms than not, I believe it is a fallacy of correlation and causation to assert that length is a requirement or would be a sole reason for a guy's success. If it was a requirement, then NO good OTs would have shorter arms. So it is false. There have been a smaller numbers of OTs with shorter arms who have done very well in the NFL. It isn't small in number because they're outliers in terms of talent - they're outliers by virtue of their much smaller number in a large pool of big fellas who have been arbitrarily turned into OTs over time. I have no doubt there are a number of NFL G who would be great at OT but are pigeon-holed by assumptions AND the accumulation of game experience that makes people good at what they practice.
There is rationale why it is more important to have long arms in terms of how OTs use their arms. But IF there are examples of HOF OTs with short arms, that means it is not a requirement, there are good techniques and abilities that compensate, and if the talent is there it doesn't matter. It is just a logical fact.
Just like speed obviously matters a lot at CB, but I'm sure there's at least 1 decent slow CB out there.
What you want to know is "Do longer armed prospects succeed more often than shorter and by how much?"
You have to start with some pool of prospects, classify arms, and then look at success rates, based on some metric.
All you did here is appeal to the deterministic pool. Not convincing.
At most the measure is a fringe contributor - and the core of my point it shouldn't warrant as much attention as it gets, as if it is a deal breaker.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12149
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1235 times
- Been thanked: 2206 times
Arm length matters quite a bit, but I do agree that it is a bit over used in player evals.
- mmmc_35
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 98 times
I will always contend wingspan is a more correlative metric to success in offensive linemen then arm length. That said wingspan nor arm length doesn't negate several other physical attributes let alone mental abilities.
- wulfy
- MVP
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2020 5:51 pm
- Has thanked: 136 times
- Been thanked: 296 times
- Contact:
The reason he wants to be traded is that he's in his 5th Year Option and wants to be a LT, not a RT or an OG.
With that in mind, I don't think he makes sense.
Plus he lead the league for LTs with 12 sacks given up.
With that in mind, I don't think he makes sense.
Plus he lead the league for LTs with 12 sacks given up.
- IE
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12500
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
- Location: Plymouth, MI
- Has thanked: 523 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
- Contact:
I do strongly agree that mental abilities are huge. Especially when you're dealing with the biggest strongest people... the ability to outwit, better anticipate, think quickly and absorb & process information in real time can really separate two otherwise similar physical specimens. If your head is faster your feet can be faster, and your leverage can be better even if the guy on the other side is technically stronger.
That is my main point. Most positions have a list of things that can help - and I think that's where the arms are. And then some traits that are required. I think with OTs strength, quickness and feet are pretty critical.
I just get triggered (LOL) when people go immediately to arm length and that alone drives opinions.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12149
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1235 times
- Been thanked: 2206 times
Yep. Any OL from the Bengals worries me, they are bad up front.
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5012
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1215 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
There's probably some credence to the fact that they're just in a tough scheme for OL. They wanna sit back and stress D with 11 personnel and Burrow is on record basically saying on third downs he's gonna hold the ball to look for the throw he wants.
Williams may look much better in the more 21/12 personnel and lots of moving pockets Getsy did. But does seem he doesn't fit the athletic archetype Poles wants and he'd probably prefer to just use that pick on a guy with tools he wants and 4 years of contract and not someone else's scraps.
Be intersting if CIN honors Williams request. I figured they'd just cut Collins and Williams would still have a starting job.. TBD.
- Arkansasbear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 4907
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
- Has thanked: 471 times
- Been thanked: 685 times
Didn't realize he was on a 5th year option. That changes things a bunch for me. Maybe a 6th that could become 5th.
No way do I want to spend a 4th for one year of a guy that has missed so much playing time. For some reason I was thinking he had gotten extended and had a few years on his contract.
-
- Pro Bowler
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:54 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 28 times
- Yogi da Bear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2584
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
- Has thanked: 222 times
- Been thanked: 402 times
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6869
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 388 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
The theory is not "shorter armed tackles can never succeed", therefore finding a couple exceptions does not disprove the theory.IE wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:08 pmIt isn't just one exception. But even if it was - If you have a theory about how things work and I can prove it false by example... it is false. Demonstrably.Moriarty wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:00 pm
But a useful question is not "are there some nonzero amount of exceptions to the rule?". Of course there are.
Just like speed obviously matters a lot at CB, but I'm sure there's at least 1 decent slow CB out there.
What you want to know is "Do longer armed prospects succeed more often than shorter and by how much?"
You have to start with some pool of prospects, classify arms, and then look at success rates, based on some metric.
The theory is that longer armed tackles have higher success rates, which requires tracking the success and failures of numerous short and long armed tackles from and unbiased pool and calculating their rates.
Nothing matters until that's been done (in a sound manner).
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12149
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1235 times
- Been thanked: 2206 times
For far too long I thought it was Rogues Scholars lmao!!
Then I realized this was one of many reasons why I am not a Rhodes Scholar myself.
- HisRoyalSweetness
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 1801 times
Cecil Rhodes has been "cancelled". Didn't you guys get the memo?
Arise Sir Walter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXdXRP6Hi-U