Trent Williams convert to LG, Will Shields #HOF

[OVCChairman]

15 hours ago, goskins10 said:

I really do not like Mike Shanahan for a variety of reasons. However, I have to just say thanks for drafting Trent Williams. Many people, including many in here, wanted Russell Okung over Trent. While Okung was OK, he is not Trent. 

 

But let's think about this for a moment. There is no doubt that Trent is one of the best OT in the NFL, really one of the est players. But if as a 5 man unit, if they are better with him LG, I believe that's what you do. Not rehashing the what do we do at LG thread as there is one. I already said I would have preferred they be more active in FA. But since they didn't you have to deal with who you have - unless they see someone opening up before the season starts- hate that plan BTW. 

 

But where they are now, with the personnel and in response the OPs question, I don;t think you can just close your mind to the idea because of how good a LT Trent is. Don't you want you best line out there, not just a few of your best pieces? 

 

 

Who plays LT?  You want Nseke out there for 16 games?   I'll freely admit that the experiment worked for a short term when we tried it, but it's not something I want to see for 16 games.  

 

Imho... if you have a player who is one of the best at what they do... let them do it.  Having Trent up against the best pass rushers in the league is a benefit to us.  Moving him to the interior and having him take on space eaters, while we have a drop off at LT against the top DEs does not seem like something I want to try out.  He's much better suited to play on the outside and set an edge.  Brandon Scherff is one of the best Guards in football and he's nowhere NEAR as athletic (that I've witnessed) as Trent... because on the inside you need to be an anchor, not a dancer.  On the outside, I want good hands and better feet.  He is so good at what he does because he can get to the point of attack faster than the defender rushing.  If you move him inside, you take away that skillset on plays where he's not pulling.  

 

It's far easier to overcome a deficiency at Guard than it is at Tackle.  It's the same on the defensive side of the ball.  You want physical freaks on the ends while you have big uglies on the interior.  Moving Kerrigan to DT doesnt make sense even though he's likely the best player we have on the defensive front.  Could we move him to DT and it 'work'... sure.  But you're washing out a VERY VERY large part of the game that makes him special.  Same thing with moving Trent inside.  

[goskins10]

1 minute ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Who plays LT?  You want Nseke out there for 16 games?   I'll freely admit that the experiment worked for a short term when we tried it, but it's not something I want to see for 16 games.  

 

Imho... if you have a player who is one of the best at what they do... let them do it.  Having Trent up against the best pass rushers in the league is a benefit to us.  Moving him to the interior and having him take on space eaters, while we have a drop off at LT against the top DEs does not seem like something I want to try out.  He's much better suited to play on the outside and set an edge.  Brandon Scherff is one of the best Guards in football and he's nowhere NEAR as athletic (that I've witnessed) as Trent... because on the inside you need to be an anchor, not a dancer.  On the outside, I want good hands and better feet.  He is so good at what he does because he can get to the point of attack faster than the defender rushing.  If you move him inside, you take away that skillset on plays where he's not pulling.  

 

It's far easier to overcome a deficiency at Guard than it is at Tackle.  It's the same on the defensive side of the ball.  You want physical freaks on the ends while you have big uglies on the interior.  Moving Kerrigan to DT doesnt make sense even though he's likely the best player we have on the defensive front.  Could we move him to DT and it 'work'... sure.  But you're washing out a VERY VERY large part of the game that makes him special.  Same thing with moving Trent inside.  

 

Easy now. I said - IF - the best 5 are with Trent at LG you should look at it. And if Bill Callahan and the rest of the coaches think Nseke can play LT well enough that overall the team is better, then they should do it and I would have no problem with it if "THEY" decide it's the best plan. 

 

Not sure where the Kerrigan thing comes from. We did not **** the bed getting a DT. Why would we do that? Having said that, same thing - if the coaches believe the team is better then they should do it - regardless of fan opinion. 

 

 

[bedlamVR]

As @OVCChairman says you move good players to where they can be great... not great players to where they might be good. 

 

If you look at Scherff he was seen by some as a T (if the Giants had selected him i have no doubt that is where they would have played him) and he may have panned out but (meh marginal)  we were in the situation where we had Mosses on the roster who had shown not much before getting injured in year 1  - They found the best combination was to have Brandon at G and Mosses at T (and took **** for it) but that one guy in essence sured up two slots because Brandon and Mosses work so well together... 

 

Which is kind of why i like this coaching set up because they are not afraid to put the best team on the field - regardles of the draft position or contract ... 

[OVCChairman]

33 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Easy now. I said - IF - the best 5 are with Trent at LG you should look at it. And if Bill Callahan and the rest of the coaches think Nseke can play LT well enough that overall the team is better, then they should do it and I would have no problem with it if "THEY" decide it's the best plan. 

 

Not sure where the Kerrigan thing comes from. We did not **** the bed getting a DT. Why would we do that? Having said that, same thing - if the coaches believe the team is better then they should do it - regardless of fan opinion. 

 

 

 

Sorry I wasn't trying to be abrasive, just having an honest conversation.  I adjusted the wording a bit to try to temper the sound of it a bit.

 

I just wanted to point out why I personally would not be in favor of the move.  I do agree that you want to field the best team you possibly can... but I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face.   To your point, you're absolutely correct, if Callahan wants that set up, he should do it.  I can't speak for him, and I'd assume that if he felt that way, Trent would have already been moved.  All of this is just speculation on my part, Callahan clearly is smarter than I am when it comes to football, so like you, I will trust his decision one way or the other.  I'm just a keyboard jockey on a message board, that guy is one of 32 people in the world who have the title he does.  O-line coach for an NFL team.  

 

My reference to Kerrigan was less regarding this year and more in years past.  In years past we have COMPLETELY slept on the DT position... so the comparison can be similar.  We've been very bad at addressing LG (and yes I agree it's probably the most glaring hole on the team) but I would prefer it be addressed the same way we have addressed C, RG, and recently, DT.  Through youth and development.  I would assume the team wanted to address it but the right opportunity didnt present itself.  There may have been a decent option via free agency, but we had Arie who could possibly be a stop gap til we find the long term solution, and we were approaching the draft.  Things broke wrong (I personally was REALLY hoping for Hernandez), or right depending on your opinion, and we ended up getting Christian and Guice which very well be a net win vs picking a Guard high in the 2nd round.  

Again this is all speculation on my part, but I have to believe the team and Callahan understand the need and whatever their options are.  Again, not trying to argue, just having an open dialogue.  

[CTskin]

Do you remember when Trent pulled as LG, it was mean. I'm not 100% for or against the idea of TW kicking over to LG, but the discussion certainly has merit and shouldn't be so easily dismissed. It hinges on one assumption, Nsekhe plays as well over the course of 16 games as he did over the few when we last did this dance; he played extremely well and there was very little dropoff from TW to him. Assuming some regression from stud to above average, it's still worth considering. This would be the difference in the left side of our OL (1-10 player rating): 

LT- 10 Trent      LT- 7 Nsekhe

LG- 4 Luavao   LG-10 Trent

Not to mention, TW at LG would be a huge benefit to Roullier. I wouldn't mind seeing TW, Roullier, and Scherff put Fletcher Cox in his place 2x a year... 

 

 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

Sorry I wasn't trying to be abrasive, just having an honest conversation.  I adjusted the wording a bit to try to temper the sound of it a bit.

 

I just wanted to point out why I personally would not be in favor of the move.  I do agree that you want to field the best team you possibly can... but I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face.   To your point, you're absolutely correct, if Callahan wants that set up, he should do it.  I can't speak for him, and I'd assume that if he felt that way, Trent would have already been moved.  All of this is just speculation on my part, Callahan clearly is smarter than I am when it comes to football, so like you, I will trust his decision one way or the other.  I'm just a keyboard jockey on a message board, that guy is one of 32 people in the world who have the title he does.  O-line coach for an NFL team.  

 

My reference to Kerrigan was less regarding this year and more in years past.  In years past we have COMPLETELY slept on the DT position... so the comparison can be similar.  We've been very bad at addressing LG (and yes I agree it's probably the most glaring hole on the team) but I would prefer it be addressed the same way we have addressed C, RG, and recently, DT.  Through youth and development.  I would assume the team wanted to address it but the right opportunity didnt present itself.  There may have been a decent option via free agency, but we had Arie who could possibly be a stop gap til we find the long term solution, and we were approaching the draft.  Things broke wrong (I personally was REALLY hoping for Hernandez), or right depending on your opinion, and we ended up getting Christian and Guice which very well be a net win vs picking a Guard high in the 2nd round.  

Again this is all speculation on my part, but I have to believe the team and Callahan understand the need and whatever their options are.  Again, not trying to argue, just having an open dialogue.  

 

I actually agree with all your points. From the face of it, moving him to LG is probably nor the best plan. I was trying to say that (not very well)  when I said I really thought they missed the chance to really address LG in free agency - which is where I thought they would look but did not.

 

Again, the only thing I was saying was that if Callahan and coaches like it and the team is better overall I would not just dismiss it. And it sounds like you are in the same place. 

 

We were violently agreeing...  It's all good. 

[OVCChairman]

8 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I actually agree with all your points. From the face of it, moving him to LG is probably nor the best plan. I was trying to say that (not very well)  when I said I really thought they missed the chance to really address LG in free agency - which is where I thought they would look but did not.

 

Again, the only thing I was saying was that if Callahan and coaches like it and the team is better overall I would not just dismiss it. And it sounds like you are in the same place. 

 

We were violently agreeing...  It's all good. 

 

Violently agreeing lol, I like it! 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Can Robert McCune play guard?

[OVCChairman]

17 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Can Robert McCune play guard?

 

 

I was so excited about that guy from the camp pictures.... and he literally did nothing in the league. 

[Malapropismic Depository]

1 hour ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Can Robert McCune play guard?

 

 

I was thinking of looking to Iceland.

 

 

 

 

[Reaper Skins]

I vote for Shaq

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

If, at some point in time, it extends his career and gives us a better overall line...then I would have no issues moving Trent inside. I'm sure that's not the answer this year, but I'd rather lose a point at T to gain 2-3 points overall on the OL. Just the increased ability to develop a running game alone could off-set the slight downgrade at T because defenses are more off balance. 

 

It's a decision I would trust Callahan to make when and if the time is right. 

[Malapropismic Depository]

2 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

If, at some point in time, it extends his career and gives us a better overall line...then I would have no issues moving Trent inside.

 

You think that moving from Tackle to Guard would extend a career ?

I'm not sayin I know the answer, just asking.

I could see it happening both ways :

If/when he starts to lose his quickness, I can see how a move to Guard would help.

But at the same time, interior linemen's bodies take more abuse, so that seems like it would work against an older player.

Tried to find average career span for NFL players by position, but could only find it for Offensive Linemen in general,

not going down specific to Guard or Tackle.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

You think that moving from Tackle to Guard would extend a career ?

I'm not sayin I know the answer, just asking.

I could see it happening both ways :

If/when he starts to lose his quickness, I can see how a move to Guard would help.

But at the same time, interior linemen's bodies take more abuse, so that seems like it would work against an older player.

Tried to find average career span for NFL players by position, but could only find it for Offensive Linemen in general,

not going down specific to Guard or Tackle.

 

You know, I don't know. I only really looked at it from the agility angle you mentioned, much like a CF might move to RF later in his career. It was an assumption on my part but could be 100% wrong. 

[mistertim]

Trent is only 30 years old. Not sure why we're talking about this yet. He's still an elite Tackle and other top Tackles have lasted a good amount past 30. Joe Thomas is 33 and is still an All Pro, Jason Peters was still a Pro Bowl LT at 34-35, Jonathan Ogden was still a Pro Bowler at 36. Great Tackles are not easy to come by, so I wouldn't move Trent out of there barring a huge injury or an extremely noticeable drop in his quickness/skill.

[MusicCitySkin]

This might be the worst suggestion I've ever seen on this board. It's the equivalent of using the player with the strongest legs to step in as placekicker.

[Malapropismic Depository]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

Trent is only 30 years old. Not sure why we're talking about this yet. He's still an elite Tackle and other top Tackles have lasted a good amount past 30. Joe Thomas is 33 and is still an All Pro, Jason Peters was still a Pro Bowl LT at 34-35, Jonathan Ogden was still a Pro Bowler at 36. Great Tackles are not easy to come by, so I wouldn't move Trent out of there barring a huge injury or an extremely noticeable drop in his quickness/skill.

 

If Trent plays at a high level for another 4-6 years, and Christian becomes starter-calibre in 2-3 years, we could have a dilemma.

Can't help but wonder if Christian may leave via Free Agency so that he can become a starter elsewhere, if the opening doesn't happen here in time.

 

[CTskin]

2 hours ago, MusicCitySkin said:

This might be the worst suggestion I've ever seen on this board. It's the equivalent of using the player with the strongest legs to step in as placekicker.

 

You're missing a lot with this analogy... 

 

If Nsekhe played like he did two years ago when he filled in at LT and there was a minimal dropoff from TW then this move would be a massive upgrade to our OL. I understand that the assumption about Nsekhe's current ability is a bit of a question mark, but it's certainly possible. In this scenario, we would replace by far our weakest link with a stud. Dividends would also be paid to our young center who would now have two of the best OL in the league on his hips.

 

I understand that this isn't a popular opinion, but I'm surprised how many don't see the potential overall upgrade. If Nsekhe has lost a step and isn't the same player that he was then I'm happy to trash the idea. 

[bowhunter]

Nseke is two years OLDER than Trent, and wasn't near the athlete that Trent is any any point in his career. If anyone is going to lose a step, it won't be Trent. I'd love to live in a world where Trent is our 2nd best O-lineman.

 

But I'd love to see some packages where Trent plays TE. God help the safety or OLB trying to fight off his blocks or cover him

[CTskin]

32 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

Nseke is two years OLDER than Trent, and wasn't near the athlete that Trent is any any point in his career. If anyone is going to lose a step, it won't be Trent. I'd love to live in a world where Trent is our 2nd best O-lineman.

 

But I'd love to see some packages where Trent plays TE. God help the safety or OLB trying to fight off his blocks or cover him

 

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I don't think you're following. My take isn't based on the idea that anyone's losing a step, it's based on the idea of putting our five best OL on the field. We currently have a gaping hole at LG and I don't like that. 

 

No one in their right mind would argue that Nsekhe > TW. But, IF the dropoff is minimal, as it was two years ago, and the upgrade at LG from Luavao to TW is massive, it makes plenty of sense to me. I understand that moving a great LT to LG would be an unprecedented move but if we improve overall then how is it not worth a look?

[MassSkinsFan]

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but...

 

I acknowledge we have a gaping hole at LG. But, the negative impact of having a terrible LG is not nearly as high as the negative impact of having a terrible LT.

 

In either case you need  to fill an open position. Why would you use the most talented player you have to fill the position requiring less talent? That just doesn't make sense.

 

It would be like a lab where you have two people - one who is the scientist who dreams up the experiments and one who runs them but doesn't do any of the thinking. The one who runs them is terrible at their job. Do you move the head scientist to fill the role and recruit their replacement?

[OVCChairman]

21 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but...

 

I acknowledge we have a gaping hole at LG. But, the negative impact of having a terrible LG is not nearly as high as the negative impact of having a terrible LT.

 

In either case you need  to fill an open position. Why would you use the most talented player you have to fill the position requiring less talent? That just doesn't make sense.

 

It would be like a lab where you have two people - one who is the scientist who dreams up the experiments and one who runs them but doesn't do any of the thinking. The one who runs them is terrible at their job. Do you move the head scientist to fill the role and recruit their replacement?

 

 

To play devils advocate here, It would mean that your thinker scientist had at one point had successfully run an experiment in the past, and the assistant you have on staff has also shown the ability to dream up basic experiments as well.  

 

I don't think moving Trent inside is what's best for the team because I am not confident in Nseke for 16 games at any position.  If anything, I'm looking at Christian at LG and using different schemes to help mask the deficiency.  I can understand the mentality of "get the 5 best lineman on the field" but to that point, I'd look at Nseke inside before I look at moving Trent there, simply because of just how good Trent is on the outside. 

[bowhunter]

1 hour ago, CTskin said:

 

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I don't think you're following. My take isn't based on the idea that anyone's losing a step, it's based on the idea of putting our five best OL on the field. We currently have a gaping hole at LG and I don't like that. 

 

No one in their right mind would argue that Nsekhe > TW. But, IF the dropoff is minimal, as it was two years ago, and the upgrade at LG from Luavao to TW is massive, it makes plenty of sense to me. I understand that moving a great LT to LG would be an unprecedented move but if we improve overall then how is it not worth a look?

I get ya. I'm not suggesting that you're promoting that Ty is on par with Trent, you're a smart and well respected poster.. I'm just of the belief that LT is the exorbitantly paid position for a reason. I imagine we could revisit this thought in a few years if TW ever shows himself to become a mortal. He would be a huge upgrade at LG no doubt, but I don't think TY can fill his shoes for an entire season.

[Koolblue13]

What a great off-season thread bump

[757SeanTaylor21]

Lets hypthetically say this was madden.

 

Lt twill lets say a 95 lt but is a 90 lg

Lg is a 70 

Nsekhe at lt is a 84. 

 

You wouldnt put nsekhe at lt and move trent to lg?!