BearFan PHX

OK I'll respond as I see them. i dont know what my opinion is going to be yet, because Im looking at each play and then responding. Feel free to come back at me and disagree too. Since we are looking at specific clips, Im totally open to hearing how you see it differently (if you do) In the first video: 23s I dont see #66 on the field? The guy that got blown up looks too skinny to be Campbell? And anyway he was defeated by a bull rush, not around the corner, so i dunno if arm length applied to that one? 2:12 Good one. DE got the corner, definitely an example of longer arms would have been helpful. If i understand correctly the longer arms help recover when you lose position, like in this one. Better footwork would mitigate it, but youre not always gonna be right, and in this case I see what you mean. 2:28 Ok this one Campbell loses the rep because he got beaten hand fighting, to the inside. It looks REALLY ugly. This should never happen. I dont think it's an arm length issue like 2:12 was though, but it's definitely a bad rep. 4:17 Beat hand fighting again. In this one, I'd give you half a point because longer arms might have helped recover from the original mistake, but he could have had better footwork and then the arms wouldnt necessarily be a problem on this rep. so 2:12 is fully an example, and 4:17 is half an example of arm length issues. Also hate to see him losing the hand fighting in some of these clips. second video: 1:13 Crap! Beaten inside again! arms might have helped recover, but mostly he just got too wide? 1:22 beaten handfighting again - I dont see this one as an arm length issue, he was withint reach of the player the whole time, just couldnt get his hands on him in a productive way. 2:48 he did OK. I can kind of see what you might mean in that he could have redirected him a little better if he had a little longer reach there, but he did OK? 3:38 I see this one a little differently than you describe it. i think Campbell was too high and took too many steps until he could get his strength engaged. His hands were on him, elbows bent, so i dont think this one was an arm length one, but for sure too high. Not a great rep. 3:52 Getting beaten with hand fighting again. I can give you half a point for arm length here because once the player disengaged, if Campbell had longer arms, he might have had better leverage to recover, but all in all, he did keep the guy off the QB. ALL this handfighting is concerning. Was this from this last year, or was some of it from when he was younger? I think you had 3:52 then 3:50, probably a typo, but im missing a rep here so I cant comment? 4:28 looks like he rode the defender out around the circle, so Id call that a good rep? He did get beat right at the snap, so thats not good, but he recovered and rode the guy out, so his arms were long enough on this one? 4:50 too high, gets backup up into the pocket. Not great, but not an issue of short arms? His elbows are bent during the rep. So mostly i see handfighting issues, playing too high, and a few times where longer arms would have helped him recover. I cant tell you again how much i appreciate and respect you pointing to specific reps on film. I know it takes some work on your part, so thank you for that. And it gives us something specific to talk about.

A couple things. First off I totally agree that longer arms is better. Im not saying its nothing, Im just saying its only part of a player evaluation. Some players succeed with less than desirable traits, but the traits are desirable because generally speaking they do make a difference. Secondly, I REALLY respect you offering film to back up your claim. To me that's everything. I'll go watch it now...

sounds right. I think the two sides are more interchangeable than you do, but either way I also think Jackson goes to the right side.

all good stuff. I would only add the Edmunds is going to be worth more now that Allen knows how to use him. If the offer is too low, Edmunds would be smart to just stay under the current contract and prove his worth to the market.

right. you can cut Bates and free up a bunch. You could always extend or restructure contracts of existing players too. The money isnt set in stone. It's not endless, but if you really believe in a player, you can probably make it happen.

Im not sure who goes to RG. I can see it a bunch of different ways. Good news is it's not like OT, moving sides isnt as big a deal at all. On one hand, you put the 4 time superbowl winner wherever he is best, and hes been a LG the whole time. Another way to look at it is how tough the running game would be with him next to Wright on the right side. I was hoping Davis would play up to his tape and we'd have an easy 4 yards whenever we wanted it on the right side, but then Davis turned out to be a turd. So it could go either way. If I had to guess, Id say Jackson goes to RG, but I wouldnt want to bet heavily on it.

And after all this, he may not even be there at #10... Picking a RB at 10 is a hard call, trading up for one from 10 borders on the ridiculous. But here we are. Things are so different now with ben Johnson, I truly dont know what to think.

We also re-signed OL Bill Murray, which is a really good depth signing. I liked the way he played. He has desire and intensity that was lacking from most of the rest last year. We also placed an exclusive rights free agent tender on special teamer and DL Daniel Hardy. Which basically means we signed him to a one year deal too.

it depends how people play, not just their measurables. Campbell handled top competition in college. Its just too easy to say "shorter arms = OG" - nothing is that direct. For Skoronski, he was a catcher, not a striker. Campbell has different traits. When you make everything about measurables, you end up drafting numbers and not players. We've seen that movie many times before. Also, these are all NARRATIVES. They are shorthand for putting everything in a little box. It's not reality. Barry Sanders is too short to be a running back in the NFL. Doug Flutie is too short to play QB. Tom Brady doesnt have the physique or arm to be an NFL QB. Hall of Fame OT Joe Thomas has short arms too. etc etc Sportswriters love these measured facts. They can look them up and then tell themselves that it tells the story. But smart scouts and GMs watch FILM, and look at how players play. It's ALL that matters. Have you seen film of Campbell failing to protect his QB because his arms were too short? Or did you just read that from some writer who also didnt watch the film, and just regurgitates the same old generalities based on numbers? If you watch Campbell and you see it differently, then so be it - I respect that. We may disagree, but at least you have an opinion. But if you read some pundit and then make these rules based dictates of who we can afford, who can and cant play - its just all too rigid and based on nothing but narratives. In that case you dont have an opinion, you just have a narrative. Because you didnt formulate it, you just regurgitated it. It's cool to disagree, but you gotta actually have an opinion. This isnt even about how he plays, its just about a few inches on his arms. Its ALL based on that one factoid.

It depends on how Johnson and the scouts value him. Swift is not good enough, but maybe an edge rusher or OT is though.

I really need to watch more film so I can argue about how we need him or should avoid him, or should take someone else!

I dont think they are going to let short term dollars affect their long term plans. I think when you bring in a new staff, you take some losses in order to accommodate the new way of doing things. Like when we switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and back etc. Now Im not saying we will be drafting Jeanty, thats many leaps from what Im saying, but if Johnson says he needs him, and Poles thinks he can make it happen, then Swift's money isn't going to be the reason why it doesnt happen.

good point. our arrow is definitely pointing up.

people rate players differently. I think he might be the 2nd best tackle in the draft. I need to watch more film.

oh man, we have never agreed more than right now!

Dont sleep on Kelvin Banks Jr either. He's a hell of a player, and maybe our LT of the future? If we go that way in the draft.

both smart comments. This is how the NFL works.

agree with all of this, except i cant trust that he will be available. if I knew he would play, it would be a totally different story.

I dont think we will re-sign him. Not unless it's as a pure backup with a contract that cheap. I feel like someone will pay him to start, but as you say, not a fortune. But more than we'd pay for him to be a backup, and he will want to start if he can too.

a freakin men!

yeah that was impressive as hell and meant nothing on the football field. Hester (as a DB or WR), Velus Jones...

THIS is a major move for a plus starter. He's 32, so it wont be forever, but right now, he's a hell of a player. He's played with Brady and Mahomes. He will be good for Caleb. Free agency hasnt even started, and we are already addressing our weakest points with good answers. Feels different now. I think we are already feeling the impact of Ben Johnson and his staff on our roster. Poles will end up looking much better as a result of his collaboration with these real football guys. Imagine the difference compared to Eberflus' opinion on players. Or Nagy.

I agree. I wasnt saying we should draft him, just that he is a first round pick for someone.

so true. we went through a bunch of coaches who thought they could coach up physical potential instead of drafting football players. I say the same thing about Will Campbells arms being too short. Skoronski, for example, had other problems that kept him from being an NFL OT (he was a catcher, not a striker), but Campbell doesnt have the same problems. Remember all the physical beasts we drafted over the years that busted? Ill name a few, and then people can jump in and add to the list. THis might be fun, if not also depressing. I'll start: Alonzo Spellman, David Terrell and Stan Thomas.

Yes I mean Jackson, thank you for catching that. He's new to me today, so i need to get more familiar with his name. What Im saying is that he doesnt have to be a long term starter for this trade to have worked. I agree that they may well draft his eventual replacement, and likely it will take some time for the rookie to be ready to beat him out. But I've been saying there are two other eventualities that are possible here too that amke this trade even smarter. One is that we get to the poace where we expected to draft his replacement and the names we wanted are gone, so we are able to draft a BPA type at another position rather than reaching to the next lower tier because we have a hole that needs filling. And Two is that if we get to that place in the draft, and the rookie we want is there, and he burns up training camp and Jackson becomes a backup. That's also a GREAT outcome. We are paying a lot in cap space this year for this flexibility and insurance, but we arent signing him on a long term deal (yet). We will have a year with him to find out how he fits, and what we want to do about it. So we may have overpaid a bit for one year, if he doesnt come in and set the world on fire, but there are still all kinds of positive outcomes from doing this even if that happens. And if he does set the world on fire, then we can sign him to a long term deal and have an answer going forward. All im saying is its more complicated than just signing a guy and plugging him in as a long term starter. if one of the other scenarios happens, and we end up with a strong OL, but Jackson isnt part of that, it was still a success, even though people will probably say Poles whiffed. But he bought insurance, which is worth something too. The way to evaluate his moves this offseason is to see whether we end up with a great OL, not how each piece necessarily works out. To make an analogy, you may hedge a bet with another bet. Both will not pay off, but that doesnt mean you shouldnt have done it, that you end up winning is all that really matters, not that all the bets you make win? Or again, insurance. I think when we signed Mike Glennon it was the same thing. We didnt know we'd get Trubisky, and then we did. Glennon failed but was a smart bet, not a long term answer as our starter, even though we paid him big. Trubisky, on the other hand, was the real mistake. Had Trubisky worked out, people might have said that we blew it signing Glennon, but we didnt, it gave us insurance, and filled a hole until Trubisky was ready. But Trubisky wasnt insurance, that was a flat out pay big draft capital for a plus starter and THAT was the big mistake. Jackson is a Glennon at worst, and a possible plus starter too. So even better.