But that knee is missing a part or two.Originally Posted by sharpe1027
But that knee is missing a part or two.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Technically, I think it is all there, but a few connections are loose.
Walker, at NFL.com by Nolan Nawrocki
STRENGTHS Big-bodied, thickly built, power-based blocker with the sheer size to cover up defenders in the run game. Flashes shock in his punch and can drop his hips and anchor vs. massive wide bodies. Solid positional pro day workout. Plays with balance. Tough, smart and durable. Team captain.
WEAKNESSES Has tight ankles, and mechanics break down the farther he has to travel. Limited pulling and reaching a moving target. Gives up the edges too easily and could do a better job controlling defenders. Tends to bend at the waist too much.
a. I doubt Nolan has any idea what tight ankles would mean for a football player. Just describe the movement that he is limited by.
b. So he can sink his hips but he is a waist bender. Can we get the frequency of each?
These reports are the babbling of the nearly unemployed. If he could draw a paycheck by saying it, Nawrocki would write that Walker is possessed by the soul of Dan Fike.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Fair point. Kinda shorted out.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
So, are those arms long, or short?
If the arms are short, but at 6'6" he is certainly tall, does he have "length" as they use the term to describe OL? After all, short guys with long arms are said to lack desired "length".
I like tall and short, thin and fat, smart and dumb; terms I understand.
Those arms are shorter than most tackles, but not T-Rex short.
He is big and tall, so he probably has an impressive wingspan which helps catch the pass rusher. But in a straight on bull rush charge, where arms are out front, his would be on the short side. Though not on the short side on the Packers.
Lang 32 3/4
Bach 34
Sitton 33 5/8
Bulaga 33 1/4"
Linsley 32"
Clifton 33"
Tauscher Did not possess arms that could be measured
Joe Thomas 32 1/2
Lots of numbers here: http://www.milehighreport.com/2015/4...offensive-line
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I remember when Bulaga was drafted, and one of the genius writers asked him if he was concerned that his arms were too short? He said he didn't know, because he had always played with them that way!
MM was once asked about Bulaga's "short" arms. He said he had never seen a guy who couldn't play Tackle because his arms were too short, but he saw plenty of guys who couldn't play Tackle because their feet were too slow.
Moving and adjusting his feet were one of the knocks on Walker, which is why scouts had him on the interior.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
It matters...but only if the guy is a decent tackle as well. Otherwise there would be a lot of NBA players lining up at LT. It matters for the punch. It matters for locking a guy out from you so he can't get his hands on you. Cameron Wake has that awesome karate move to knock hands off of his chest. Without it the mammoth tackles lock you out there and control you. See Ogden, Jonathon.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Sorry, I can't buy that a half inch makes a darn bit of difference.
What makes you think they are worried about a half inch?
And why would arm length be different than a height floor for a CB?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
We had a good example of it a year ago or so when one of the writers was discussing draft picks , and described one as having arms too short to be a tackle, and another being a good tackle prospect because of the length of his arms, and the difference was something like 5/8". Before I mostly ignored those comments, but when a writer obsesses over it so much that one prospect was a zero and the other a good prospect at tackle just because of his arm length, I decided to pick up the fight. Some writers are obsessed with arm length. They talk about it all the time and more than other things. If they measured how far forward a player can reach, rather than just the length of his arms, I might think it a more worthy factor, but not determinative, either.
While I think the difference between a 6' CB and one 5'9" is wroth considering, I don't think 5'11 vs 5'11/2" is worth worrying about at all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote