DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Jedrick Wills. Time to crown him a bust

He has had 4 years to to show what he has made of.
He can be labeled a official bust now.
His mental lapses and lack of drive headline what
Is wrong with him. Yet the Browns picked up his 5th year
Option. Money not well spent.
If Wills played for a playoff contender he would be benched
By now

Yeah, great start for Wills. After 2 weeks, he has a PFF grade of 45.0 and is the 67th rated tackle through 2 weeks. His 14.124M is fully guaranteed next season too. But hey - he's serviceable I've been told.

Servicing or serviceable?

Never mind.

I said in gameday, let Dunn play guard, move bitonio to LT and end the Wills experiment. He is really really bad. He can't handle speed at all

Wills has been lousy.

In the first game, his guy beats him and Wills shoves him into Conklin's knee ending his season. Against the Steelers, gets toasted off the line leading to Watson getting the ball stripped out of his hand and then the scoop and score.

I would like to hear an honest appraisal of him from Callahan. Callahan can make practice squad guys into legit starters and he hasn’t been able to make a first-rounder from Alabama a decent player. Yet, he must have had a say in giving him the fifth-year option.

He lacks heart and effort

Wouldn't waste giving him a crown for anything

Now a boot may be more fitting

his thing is mostly effort and consistency. He seems to take a lot of plays off especially when he's tired

Jones might be the OL that I'm least worried about right now. They all looked pretty lousy. They might have to take a page out of Ohio State's recent OL playbook and focus on "bringing the violence."

It also doesn't help the looks of things when your QB ends up being responsible for 4 out of 6 sacks.

I think our entire offensive line including Wills are much better run blockers than pass blockers. I don't think I will label him a bust. An average Tackle yes. If I remember correctly, he was right tackle in college that we moved to the left side. He might be better suited for right tackle than left.

I think if Watson can settle his butt down in the pocket and the line continues to gain familiarity with his tendencies (he's a more mobile QB) then they'll start looking much better.

Maybe, Oober. Doesn't look like a natural pocket passer. Might as well roll him out; at least that way he is already running when the rush arrives, and his O line has some idea where his and will be. Stoolers showed the way to pressure us (actually, lots of ways). Our OC didn't seem to adjust. Not a giggle, but it is ironic to note, with the talent and hype for DW and this line and these receivers, well, anybody has to admit we certainly showed a lot of upside potential. We didn't adjust much, didn't look ready, and mentally flopped. Fumbless and flags are mostly mental mistakes.

They were giving up early pressure on the inside. A lot of the time there wasn't a pocket to get comfortable in. I don't know if they were trying to give Jones help that he didn't seem to need or what, but it seemed the IOL were almost pulling on pass plays at times and defenders were just coming straight through the vacated space in the middle. Even when Watson "had time", he was frequently moved off of his spot and the timing of his footwork and the routes were off kilter. At least that is how it seemed live. I need to watch again to really try to figure out what exactly was going on, but not sure I'm up for that yet.

How many of these happened after he avoided sacks the OL would have been responsible for?

I'm not sure on the number. It felt like he was moved off of his spot a lot. It's hard to make reads while avoiding rushers.

Watson was definitely not good. The line also did very little to help allow him to be so. There was lots of bad on O all around.

I know you love to use semantics as a means to avoid things. But saying he was responsible means he walked right into them. Since it seems you're trying to change the scoreboard here you must also account for the times he held the ball so long. The NFL average time a QB has protection to get rid of the ball has been posted on this board many times. If your QB keeps staying back there holding the ball the OL shouldn't be blamed for that. You may wish to take those times into account. Or maybe not.

I prefer to look at context to try to understand things. You seem to love to use vague generalities, flat out inaccurate characterizations, and straw man arguments to support agendas. You may think you are using "stats" and "facts," but, even if they are, they aren't worth anything when used in those straw man arguments.

Does "saying he was responsible" actually mean "he walked right into them" as you say? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Where are you getting your numbers and how do they actually define the "responsibility stat?" I'm guessing there is a time element involved, as you eventually get to, but a QB isn't always the reason the ball is held. They don't have/use the option of holding receivers responsible for not being open. Sometimes the QB is "missing" (not seeing) open receivers because the timing of the play is spoiled by pressure. Sometimes its not just one thing. There is a time to pass stat. There is also a time to pressure stat. They can be inversely related. If a QB is under duress before the hot read can even get open, the ball can't come out quick and the QB is going to be running for his life. He'll be holding the ball while doing this and if he scrambles for a long time it will have a large effect on his time to throw stat. You can get it out in 2.2 seconds 10 times, but throw in one 10 second scramble play and the average jumps to 2.9 seconds. Players that have "scrambling ability" will frequently have higher time to throw stats for this reason. Perhaps having a stat that looked at the mode (as in mean, median, and mode-- most frequent) of a QB's pass times would be a helpful complement to the average.

I'm not trying to change the scoreboard, I'm trying to look beyond it. Some people are box score scouts. Some aren't. I'm not. You seem to be.

It is what it is. For me, box score scouting (or "stat" scouting) is annoying. Some people appear to need the simplicity, and/or for other people to do their thinking/work. For me, simplicity is insufficient, especially when upon further examination the simplicity appears to mislead or at best not really tell one a whole lot.

*shrug* I'm going through the ALL-22 now.

Yes he is a bust. Even as an Alabama fan, I have to agree with that.

Still trying to dance around it I see. It was posted on this very board with a link.

He's certainly disappointing. That said, I think there's still value there. Using my crystal ball, I don't see him as our starting LT next season, but I also don't necessarily think he should be bumped off the roster. There's room for 'mostly-competent' offensive tackles on just about any roster (and now that I say that, I realize he'd need a new contract so I bet he gets signed away from us in the off-season).

If it was in the post game thread, I avoided the thread entirely expecting it to be a lot of angry/depressed venting. I'm not sure I'll go back through the 100 some posts there, especially when I see the type of posts I expected to see there still happening all over the boards.

I don't dance. I try to look beyond the knee jerk surface reactions. I prefer "stories" to "math problems." Especially when those "stats"/"math problems" don't tell the whole story.

I look for the Why and How and try to figure out what can potentially be done about it. Meanwhile you're busy harping about the surface basics that everybody with eyes already knows. Yes, those are the stats. But, it's not always easy to determine what those stats should actually be telling you. There's a reason lots of aspects of sport are considered more art than science.

Rather than dig into things and try to figure things out, you seem to just spend all your time stirring up animosity or trying to change the subject or repeating the obvious. Unfortunately, its really hard for me to ignore you when you're replying to my posts. I kind of wish when you had someone on ignore it straight up didn't show that they had posted. I'm a digger. Give me something to open up, I'm going to click it.

I seem to understand that the people who come up with those numbers look at the "Why and How" those sacks happened when assigning blame rather than be someone who claims they're the only people who do that. It's sad that you think people who do this for a living aren't the diggers and only you are. And just like a lot of people, those who pose and opposing view are people you would rather not interact with and only wish to look at those who agree with you. That works well to achieve confirmation bias which seems to be what you're looking for here.

I never claimed that I was the only one. Way to go straw man and personal and made up.

I never claimed they weren't diggers. However, there is collecting data, and there is providing context. They may have more context than they provide with their statistics. That is a reality with statistics, they are ultimately simplifications. If you're working in a system that requires blame to be assigned to one individual, it has a different perspective than one trying to look at all contributing factors. They are providing a numbers based product. It has its uses. It is not the be all, end all. Football's not a math problem. It's not played on a spreadsheet.

You don't present an opposing view. You present a statistic with little to no accompanying explanation of your view. You point to your "facts"/statistics as proof against opposing views that those "facts" don't actually do anything to address. I'm not looking for confirmation bias, I'm looking for another angle worth looking at that I haven't thought of. "This is the stat" doesn't provide any angles nor insight.

I present the view that people who do this for a living are better at formulating these things than people on a message board. I also present the view that you have only brought up questioning others without showing any evidence to counter their statistics. It's very easy for someone to sit and question people without actually providing any answers themselves or counter what they said based on any evidence to the contrary. It's the world we live in now. It's the world of "Yeah, but."

I'm not trying to formulate statistics. I'm not trying to "counter their statistics." I'm trying to look at the rest of the story.

We live in a world of gotcha BS, sound bytes, one liners, tweets, and misinformation. Those are your go to devices.

We could use a world where people question all the faulty assumptions and number toting sociopaths.

Then please tell us "the rest of the story." It seems questioning the results without providing anything to counter them is "your go to device".

A lot of the rest of the story is posted in different threads. Go find it. (Yes, that's referring to your "its posted on this board with a link" earlier)

If you can't see what's being provided, that's on you.

You didn't provide it to begin with. Only placing blame on others.

He might not be joe Thomas, but he is currently part of the O Line that has us 2nd in rushing.

He doesn’t deserve the bust label.

Hopefully that ranking will stay up there without Chubb.

As long as Stefanski doesn’t get pass happy, and Watson stops running into sacks.

J/c

I'll just leave this here. Emphasis on Schwartz's last sentence.



Not showing up for me for some reason. Here's the quote:


link

End of the day, the other players that played poorly only contributed to the loss but did not cause it. The loss was squarely on Watson and Ski, period. And I doubt you will see either trying to take the full responsibility.

I take it you didn't watch the post game press conferences?

I agree.

Some tend to throw around the "bust" label with ease. He may not be what we hoped, but he isn't a bust.

It may go down some. Chubb was better than most, but I doubt we all of a sudden get stonewalled in the running game.

I did watch them. DW and Ski said the right things, but I didn’t and don’t believe they are sincere. Especially DW, after some of his ongoing remarks.

If you saw it and he literally said he took full blame, why would you write that you doubt you will see either trying to take the full responsibility? If you didn't think he was sincere, why not just say that in the first place? Doubting that you will see what you allegedly had already seen seems a bit... contradictory.

I think you just don't like Watson, and that's fine. You definitely wouldn't be alone in those feelings.

Some people hear sincere, some don't. You can only go by what they say. Either you believe him or you don't.

There are a lot of people who say the right things, but don’t mean them. He still thinks he did nothing wrong with all those women. Yes, I dislike him as a person, but I’m willing to let him play ELITE ball all he wants… Why don’t you tell me when that happens.

I’d take Baker over him any day.