Bengals OT Jonah Williams requests trade

[wab]

He's struggled with injuries, but I would happily send a 4th round pick to them for Williams.

[EricTighe]

Can he play the right side

[Arkansasbear]

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.

[IE]

Yes please.

[wab]

Can he play the right side

Listed at 6'5 312 with 34in arms. I certainly think he could.

[The Kaiser]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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?

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.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

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.

[EricTighe]

Nice article regarding arm length and it's realistic importance.

https://www.pff.com/news/does-arm-length-affect-ot-play

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

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]

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?

No, they were considering moving him inside to guard. They have Collins at RT.

[Moriarty]

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.

[Yogi da Bear]

Nice article regarding arm length and it's realistic importance.

https://www.pff.com/news/does-arm-length-affect-ot-play

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.

[IE]

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.

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.

[duckherd50]

I've never witnessed anyone argue arm length before.....quite interesting.....lol

[Moriarty]

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.

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.

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.

[IE]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[dplank]

Arm length matters quite a bit, but I do agree that it is a bit over used in player evals.

[mmmc_35]

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]

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.

[IE]

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.

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.

Arm length matters quite a bit, but I do agree that it is a bit over used in player evals.

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.

[dplank]

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.

Yep. Any OL from the Bengals worries me, they are bad up front.

[The Cooler King]

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.

Yep. Any OL from the Bengals worries me, they are bad up front.

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]

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.

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.

[wiNDycityfan]

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.

All there is to know. Good post.

[Yogi da Bear]

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.

We want to be Rhodes' Scholars:

[Moriarty]

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.

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.

The theory is not "shorter armed tackles can never succeed", therefore finding a couple exceptions does not disprove the theory.

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).

[dplank]

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.

We want to be Rhodes' Scholars:

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]

We want to be Rhodes' Scholars:

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.

Cecil Rhodes has been "cancelled". Didn't you guys get the memo?