DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Trades

TRENT WILLIAMS
T, SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS

49ers coach Kyle Shanahan said the team won't immediately begin extension talks with newly-acquired LT Trent Williams.

“Trent has been out of football for a year and a half, and Trent made it clear to everyone he wants to come back and didn’t want to do a deal right away,” coach Kyle Shanahan said, framing the slow start in talks as Williams' wish. “He wanted to play and try to get back into it and see where he was at with the rest of the league and pick up where he left off." In a way it makes sense, but the if the 49ers were ready to pay Williams, he would not decline. It remains possible, if not probable, that Williams gets extended before Week 1 after the Niners can finally see him in person and gauge where he is at after missing so much time. Williams is due $12.5 million in the final year of his contract.

SOURCE: Profootballtalk on Twitter
Apr 26, 2020, 10:43 AM ET

By the time San Fran's pick came up four LT's had been selected. At that point they weren't sure their LT slot could be filled with a year one starter.

Four other teams ahead of them did. Right or wrong, all of those teams chose a draft pick over paying a huge contract plus draft capital for Williams. The situation dictated that San Fran make the move they did. I actually thought you might stop droning on about this after the draft. Guess not.

I was just about to hit the "like" button until that last sentence. Why do you do stuff like that?

The guy has laid out his opinion exceptionally well - if perhaps too lengthy - and never got his boxers-in-a-bunch when someone disagreed.

He has simply been expressing his opinion on a current need for the Browns.

It's a posting style that has been cultivated by a few on here for a while. It's maddening when you agree with everything someone says, but then they just HAVE to add that little dig in at the end.

It's a stylistic expression.

San Fran got him for relatively cheap (not counting his salary)... the draft capital was a lot lower than if he would have been delt last year....

I completely agree with you, oobernoober.... kudos.
You’re usually wrong but this time you nailed it.

... and here I thought I would regret posting that.

Hey, your opinion is just an opinion and I'm fine with that. Also note, I don't take shots at you but so be it if it meets your needs.

First of all you're wrong about the 49ers. They had an opportunity at one of the top 4 tackles because they had the 13th pick and 1 was left on the board. One of three reasons occurred for them to not make the pick. 1) Their board had a different player as BPA. 2) Most likely, the player left was a RT and making a pick at #13 for a player that doesn't play the position is high risk. 3) The top 4 OT's are over hyped and we can address the position later in the draft which they did two ways by drafting a LT in the 5th round and trading for Trent Williams.

Please just think about it for a moment. What was the gain or loss for the 49ers trading out of the #13 pick for the #14 pick. They got the 14th pick an additional 4th round pick for the flip flop giving the 13th and a 7th rounder and didn't have a solid plan to address their LT need. They then traded up giving their 31st pick, 4th round 117Th and 176th 5th round pick to MIN to get the 25th pick which they took a WR with. Now they have no 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round pick nor did they have a solid in road to Trent Williams. With LT sitting wide open with Staley's announced retirement, why would the 49ers trade out of the spot where they had a shot at what some considered the best OT prospect in Wirfs? According to you (not my analysis) you're saying the 49ers were not sure Wirfs could fill their need as a year one starter.

In that statement, I agree that the only answer is Wirfs didn't meet their needs and he did meet the TTB need for a RT. So they took a 4th round pick in exchange for their pick and then reached in a selection at #14 for a DT which most analysts give them a B- for the pick. The issue remains though as to why the 49ers skipped on one of the 4 top OT's all of which were graded very closely and deemed plug n play players.
Wirfs actually started a couple of games at LT in college so there was limited if not very limited experience at the position.

So why the skip on LT? Is it because they were over rated? Is it because the switch from RT to LT is more complicated than what we think? Was there a huge drop off between Wills, Becton, and Wirfs or were they equally talented as advertised? Of the 4 advertised top OT's in the draft, only 1 has never played a single game at LT in high school or college and that was Wills the Browns pick. So again, why did SFO pass on Wirfs and trade out of the position for an additional 4th rounder when they had as glaring a hole at LT as the Browns had? Or maybe, the 49ers scouting reports on those tackles tell a different story than what the Browns reports say.

Williams is gone and that boat has sailed. That doesn't mean the Browns made the right decision nor SFO for that matter. However, just because you did not agree with pursuing Williams and I thought it was a good move doesn't make either one of us right or wrong at this point. Wills production on the field and the ability to be a day 1 plug and play will determine that disagreement. Like I've stated, the Browns offense has been built to win now not 2-3 years down the road. Drafting at #10 required getting a plug n play player at whatever position that would contribute on day 1. If Wills cant do that or worst yet not able to make the conversion of switching from RT to LT then I call the draft pick a waste. As of today, the Browns have a player, they don't necessarily have a LT solution. That remains to be seen. IMO, the 49ers didn't think it was a good idea to draft a college RT for the NFL LT position so they traded the pick. The 49ers had the opportunity to get 1 of the top 4 OT's on the board - Hmmm, you are wrong on your assessment, and the 49ers passed. The reason why is up for debate.

actually the 49ers obviously didn't want to takes Wifs.. maybe they were high on Wills or Becton but they weren't there... we don't know... ultimately they made a good trade for a guy who should be able to help right away... of course Williams has been out of football for a year after having a tumor removed from his head... he's also over 30.... I liked Williams but ultimately I think Wills was a great move. I honestly think he'll be able to start at LT without an issue from day 1.... but we'll see... I could be wrong

Can you imagine if we gave up the draft capital (even the little that it ended up taking to get him) to bring him in and we were just gonna 'let it ride' in terms of getting him signed long-term? Having just played in a Superbowl kinda gives you some leeway to do stuff like this, I imagine.

Texans did that with Tunsel... slightly different situation as Tunsel had all the leverage due to draft capital Texans gave up and their glaring need at tackle... He signed a 60+ million deal over 3 years with I think 50 million guaranteed.... worked out well for him

I feel that it's probably smart for both sides of this trade to wait to give Williams a deal... niners get to see if he's in shape still and Williams gets a bigger deal if he is...

Did not realize/remember that.

I just immediately started imaging the drama-infused standoff if/when these talks are further and further delayed.

If I had the choice of picking Wirfs in their place, I would have passed on him too. Saying they passed on the leftovers of the four tackles doesn't mean they were wrong. It means they weren't desperate.

Point being that ship has sailed. It's obvious that Wirfs didn't grade out at the pick and I agree. I however disagree that in our situation, where we picked and with Wills still being on the board, that passing on Wills would have been the right decision.

I'll stand by my per-draft opinion. Thomas was already a LT and Wills was projected to move to LT based on his game film before the combine.

However, most had Wirfs penciled in at either RT or G before the combine. No matter how you work out in shorts, how you play the game is what counts. These players that shoot up the draft board or are given a bump in projection based on the combine are cautionary tales.

But we are talking about a different player than the one we drafted. We weren't fourth in line on the LT choices. Hell, we weren't even third on the list. I think your question, "So why the skip on LT? Is it because they were over rated?", is not even close to being accurate or even relevant here. And it's only obvious to anyone who reads it.

Why? Because you are trying to compare the LT draft class to one pick, the fourth in line. That has no relevance to the prior two or three. None. And I wouldn't have selected Becton with their pick either. None of that has anything to do with Wills.

I think the Bucs will regret drafting Wirfs unless they plan to play him at RT or G. But that has zero to do with Wills or the top two picks at the position which we had the luxury of taking.

So since we both agree the answer will only come by watching this play out, can we end the speculation until it does play out, or are we going to keep hearing this over and over again on a weekly basis until then?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Why be so upset, he didn't say one thing of value.. made no commitment at all....

yeah... typically I think you want a long term deal basically in place before a trade like this... but I guess I understand why not..

Texans screwed themselves with not having one in place with Tunsil

Yeah, a sign and trade deal is always what you want in a situation like this. Not having one may work out okay. But knowing what his asking price is and giving him all of the leverage I don't think will bode well for the 49'ers in the end.

I think it'll end up being a one year rental unless the 9ers give up a ton. I think that he wants to get to free agency and cash in big and do so in a year where the draft isn't stacked at the top with OT's

On another note, it appears the Browns are going to exercise the 5th year options on Garrett and Njoku.

https://nfltraderumors.co/browns-exercising-fifth-year-options-for-de-myles-garrett-te-david-njoku/

The price tag for Garrett will be around $15.184 million for 2021 and Njoku around $6 million.

This would appear to be a huge price tag to pay for a person not considered your #1 TE. It will also limit the teams opportunity to trade Njoku after May 3rd or next year with his hefty salary commitment and lack of production to this point.

For Garrett, you would think the Browns might be looking at a long term extension rather than the 5th year option considering the cost of the position.

These decisions are just the beginning with next year bringing option decisions on Mayfield and Ward with final year contracts sitting on Chub, Thomas and Ratley.

Another talking point, Olivier Vernon is scheduled to be paid a base salary of $15.5 million in the final year of his contract in 2020. This salary makes Vernon the highest paid Cleveland Brown going into the 2020 season as it stands. So far, Vernon has not lived up to expectations for the Browns and represents no dead cap money if they release Vernon. The question is whether Vernon's production to this point warrants the Browns having him as the highest paid player on the team? With $39,084,328 cap space available (top 51 salaries with rookie contracts) and adding Vernon's salary to the pot - could the Browns upgrade the position without affecting future possible commitments? Just a thought considering the Browns are basically renting Vernon for 1-year at $15.5 million because they will not meet his demands on a new deal IMO. Could this money be better spent elsewhere?

That's a possibility. But I think your option two makes more sense. The 49'ers give up a ton. I guess it would depend on how one views draft capital. I do think giving a third and fifth round pick for Williams considering their options was a pretty good deal.

On the other hand I feel investing that draft capital for a one year rental is an expensive proposition. I can understand why some may feel differently. But I'm of the mind that if I'm giving up a 3rd and 5th round pick for a top tier LT, I've already made my mind up that I plan to pay the man.

I’m with SF on this one ... there window is clearly wide open right now so they had to replace Staley ... before i dump huge money on top of the draft picks I just gave up I wanna see what dude is like after not playing for over a year and half ...

I'm not sure I'd make that a blanket statement for every LT candidate in this draft. But when the only one of the top rated LT's left at their pick was Wirfs I certainly agree with them.

I think you've probably hit the nail on the head, but I think they're going to have to jump pretty high to keep him from wanting to go to free agency for one last cash-in.

Of course, he's going to have to show that he hasn't lost a step at all since 2018 to show them he's still worth that deal.

Win-Win for both, and a can't lose situation for the 9ers unless he completely implodes.

j/c,

Why do more people not question college LTs' moving to RT at the next level, ...
as they do with a RT moving to the LT?

No, what we hear is that "he will have to move to RT" ...
without questioning whether or not they can learn the opposite footwork.

My point exactly, never question Wills upside or ability. The move from RT college to LT NFL is a huge move and rarely done because of the different skill set needed. This proposed move is not some minor move - it's s huge move and very few players can make that adjustment especially ones who have never taken a single game snap in high school or college at the position. In fact, I'm not even questioning drafting Wills. IMO, Wills has the perfect body and movement to be a day 1 starting RG for the Browns. That's where I believe Wills best high value is for the Browns. I actually think that RG is where he will eventually end up at for the Browns.

The problem is that the Browns did not address the open LT position with a LT. They haven't done in in free agency, trades, or the draft. Heck, even the UDFA they picked up in Taylor (rated as the #15 OT in the draft) has never played LT. This could still be a huge hole and a bigger problem for the Browns.

On another note but related. It is forecasted now that only 17 of the 32 1st round draftees in the 2017 NFL draft will have their 5th year options exercised by the team where they are currently members. It was only 16 until the Browns exercised Njoku. Njoku is now scheduled to make about 6-million in his 5th year. Njoku is scheduled to be paid 1.76 million in 2020. His 2021 salary would be a 341% increase over his 2020 salary. IMO, Njoku hasn't earned that Kind of raise to this point and it would appear on the surface that the Browns didn't think so either when they signed Hooper as TE#1. What changed I don't know but it wasn't performance. I would also think that with the option in place that there is or will be a zero trade market for Njoku now or in the future unless he gets a whole lot better than he is right now. Anyway, with only 17 players getting 5th year options, the success rate for 1st round draft picks is still around 53-55%. That's if you actually believe that Njoku can right now be called a successful 1st round pick.

That brings me back to Wills. Great college talent at RT with a huge upside and potential. Even with that, there's still only a 53-55% chance that he's a successful pick as a RT. Moving him to a position he has never played would have to make you think that those odds would decrease dramatically. Again, I'm not questioning the pick or the player. I'm questioning the move that some think is going to be easy - I think not. I am just confused why the Browns would have all their eggs in one basket at this point on a player that could have a less than 50% chance of success statistically.

It's about how the RT usually gets help. Often times you get a TE to chip block which prevents the RT from having to play on an island. By contrast the LT does often play on an island and has sole responsibility for that left side.

That requires a higher skill set. This is just one of the main reasons you often see college LT's transfer to the RT or G position in the NFL. In the case of Wills he was the RT for a left handed QB. So it is sort of a role reversal. In most cases you have the best and most agile player on the OL play LT, even in college.

In the case of a left handed QB your best and most agile OL player would be the RT. It's as much about ability as it is footwork. It's also why very few college RT's are projected to be LT's.

But there is a measure of muscle memory involved. Often time even college players who are projected to move from LT to RT in the NFL never make the transition. Some never make it in the league and some get moved inside to G.

So I see you have decided not to wait and see how it all plays out first. I can't say I'm surprised.

It still requires a change in footwork.
The same mental gymnastics are required.

So said LT must move to the right side where he 'will' (future tense) get some help from the TE.

This is due to his skillset, not his footwork, and I say footwork, because the technique taught can be one and the same thing, only in reverse.

Quite simply, though the center is considered the "rock" of the line and usually calls the blocking schemes and provides the stop for the shortest distance to the QB, the left tackle usually has the hardest job to do game in and game out.

Why?

Defenses put their best pass rusher lined up on the offensive left side.

Why?

It's usually the "blind side" of the QB's vision and many times he never sees them coming. This allows not only for sacks, but fumbles and tipped balls. It's so easy to slap a ball out of a QB's hands when he's drawn back to throw.

So why not put the best rusher against the right tackle if he's not as suited to stop him? Because they QB can see him coming and can either roll away or step up the pocket to avoid him.

By coming from the blind side, if the pass rusher beats the left tackle, it's usually disastrous for the QB who usually sees it too late to avoid a bad outcome.

Since the best pass rusher is also usually not just a strong guy, but the fastest pass rusher to boot, the left tackle has to have that quick initial surge to keep from being either blown by or circled.

So just being a big strong heavy roadblock is nowhere close to being enough of a resume to stopping a tall fast pass rusher. He has to be fast himself, usually faster than most right tackles are.

Left tackles with long arms can extend their range from being blown by or circled. A quick guy with long arms can sometimes give a little push to a pass rusher as he's trying to streak by that a guy with shorter arms might miss. That extra second or two can be all the difference between a completed pass or a sack.

And not that left tackles have higher SAT scores or anything, but there is more for them to know and usually many more wrinkles thrown at them. Many times an All American or even Pro Bowl right tackle has been switched to other side for multitudes of reasons and very rarely have the results been everything one would have hoped for.

The QB has to trust that his blind side is being protected. Taking your eyes off the field for even a second to check the left side rush could throw off your timing.

Rushers need to trust that a hole will appear where the play has been called and a fullback needs to trust the line can handle their usual men so he's free to concentrate on picking up a blitzer on a pass play.

Pass plays usually work or fail because of the job done by the left tackle. That's a lot to put on one's shoulders and that's why not every linemen is cut out to be a left tackle.

The vast majority of college RTs don't become LTs in the NFL because they don't have the required skillset. Of the group that were LTs in college and then move to RT, it's because their skillset isn't where it needs to be to become an NFL LT. It's a correlation thing, not a causation thing.

If the prevailing notion (the notion that had Wills drafted to the Browns) is to be believed, then that means Wills is a very unique prospect. He possesses the required LT skillset, but just so happens to have played RT. He will have to work on technique, but he would've anyways (they all need to). Not a single prospect came out in the draft that DOESN'T need to clean up parts of their technique in a hurry. Not even Thomas. The RT-->LT part adds further complexity to the technique work needed, but it doesn't seem to be a dealbreaker, it seems.


I REALLY like one thing about Wills... and that's his runblocking. There was comment that was in a handful of his scouting videos, and that was something to the effect of "Wills can contribute in the short term via runblocking while he hones his passblocking". I think that jives (or should jive) with our offensive philsophy this coming season. Him and Baker would be much better served operating within an offense that highlights the run. We'll see over the course of the next season how they handle that, and go from there.

Also we know from experience that not all who played on the Left side in college can make the change even to RG at the next level...

You get it ... its not a question of skillset with Wills.

Times have changed. The best pass rushers do not necessarily line up against the offensive left side.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/05/31/nfl-le...-defensive-ends

I tried to cover that part with this............

I think because most people are right handed. It's just more natural for a right hander to put his right hand in the ground and pivot to his right. More natural to take a wide outstep with your right foot.



JMO....some will probably call me stupid.

Yes, I'm just pointing out that the rest of it is irrelevant and that either switch has to go through a similar mental and physical process.

Sorry that I did not take the time to quote selectively Pit, my bad.

j/c,

Hey! Anyone like to guess what position "T-Bone" Tony Jones played for us before moving out to LT?

... ...

Well if my memory serves me correctly, T-Bone was an 1988 undrafted free agent from Western Carolina where he was a LT. He played for 8-years with the Browns playing both tackle spots. In 1988 he was a backup and only appeared in 4 games. In 1989 he was a backup appearing in 9-games while starting 3. In 1990, Jones became a full-time starter at RT for the Browns. He switched back to his familiar LT spot in 1991 and played LT for the Browns through 1995.

Jones played the inaugural year for the Baltimore Ravens at LT in 1996 holding the position for future HOF LT Jonathan Qgden who as a rookie in 1996 played LG next to Jones.

Jones went to the Broncos in 1997. Jones played RT for the Broncos in 1997 because the LT spot was held down by HOF and reigning Pro Bowl LT Gary Zimmerman. In 1998, Jones switched back to his familiar LT position and made his only Pro Bowl appearance. Jones continued at LT in 1999 and 2000 with the Broncos. Jones won 2-Super Bowls while a member of the Broncos.

T-Bone retired after the 2000 season.