Short arms, this time Tyler Linderbaurm

[AU-panther]

8 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

I am not worried about his arm length. more worried about him just being on the smaller side in general. I feel like his technique will make that irrelevant.

Would I take him in the top 6? No. Would I take him in the top 15? Yes.

He could turn out great.  His college tape is great, but as with any player you are trying to forecast if they can transition that same success to the next level, measureables help you calcualte that risk, same as level of competition.  In the top-10 I'm trying to mitigate my risk as much as possilble,  I want every box checked.

20 hours ago, Chad_Cota said:

Unless your name is Quenton Nelson 

If a player has to become an all time great to be worth a pick it might be too risky of a pick to start with.  What if he becomes average?  What if the LT you pick becomes average?  Which is one is worth more?  The LT easily.  

In some ways the LT is a lot safer pick because he doesn't have to be as good to justify his draft spot and subsequent cap hit.

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

OL is a facilitator position, period. It allows you to get the best out of your skill position players but if you're trash there, well you're just trash.

Well said.

Your O-line just has to be good enough to allow your offense to be good.

Would you prefer Joe Burrow behind our line or Sam Darnold behind Dallas' line?

 

[top dawg]

I wouldn't take him at 6, and I don't give a sh¡t what his size is. Positional value is a real thing.

As for me, it's too early to be making conclusions on the QBs.

If you can't make a trade-down that makes sense, you stay where you are and take the best player available. 

This is my take, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[PootieNunu]

1 hour ago, stbugs said:

Kelce was a 6th round pick. Kalil was a late 2nd. If size is a concern (it was on his draft weaknesses), you don’t take him pick 6. Compare him to whoever you’d like. Even the most lauded Cs of the past decade of drafts went 18th, not 6th. Humphrey may be the best young C out there and he was picked late 2nd after Marshall.

I wouldn’t mind Humphrey on the team but his size is a negative not a plus. He’ll have to work around it and pick 6 is not where you want to take a C for value. Nelson had no questions at all and the Colts still should have gone Allen. There are no QBs so T has to be the way. 

We dont even know if we need a LT because the one we selected last year barely got to see the field. We know we need C and G. 

I already said I dont want the guy at 6 as my first choice, if we can trade down and grab some extra picks I would love to have him. 

[PootieNunu]

3 hours ago, stbugs said:

BC is nowhere near as talented as the top LTs, period. You don’t pass on a great player at a high value position for BC. We aren’t going to get good trade down value IMHO since no QBs are worthwhile.

Of course he isnt, but is he just another wasted pick then? Can he play guard? The guy should have been on the field last year so we know the answers. 

[SetfreexX]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:32 AM, AU-panther said:

 

Does it matter?  

Does he drop?

Would you be ok spending pick 6 on a guy that has to be an exception?

 

Not even the arms, that man only weighs 291...

That is small as hell for an interior OL

And some of ya'll wanted him at #6, FFS

Not saying he isn't worth a selection before the conclusion of Day 2, but his size is a ''?'' to me, of course he can add weight; but that would take a while for the weight / strength / athleticism to match up. 

[jayboogieman]

22 hours ago, top dawg said:

I wouldn't take him at 6, and I don't give a sh¡t what his size is. Positional value is a real thing.

As for me, it's too early to be making conclusions on the QBs.

If you can't make a trade-down that makes sense, you stay where you are and take the best player available. 

This is my take, and I'm sticking to it.

 

You say positional value is a real thing yet also say you would take BPA. If you're going BPA, that player might play at a position that doesn't line up with your positional value. BPA might also not line up with your needs. If a team has a fairly young franchise QB, should they take another QB with their first rounder because he is BPA? I'm not saying drafting for need is the way to go either. Need as well as where you're good at must be considered when drafting.

[jayboogieman]

43 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

Not even the arms, that man only weighs 291...

That is small as hell for an interior OL

And some of ya'll wanted him at #6, FFS

Not saying he isn't worth a selection before the conclusion of Day 2, but his size is a ''?'' to me, of course he can add weight; but that would take a while for the weight / strength / athleticism to match up. 

It's truly sad when a man that weighs 291 pounds and is over 6ft tall is considered hella small. Considering a lot, if not most, of that is muscle and not fat, a lot of you metric obsessed guys are underestimating the kid.

[SetfreexX]

2 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

It's truly sad when a man that weighs 291 pounds and is over 6ft tall is considered hella small. Considering a lot, if not most, of that is muscle and not fat, a lot of you metric obsessed guys are underestimating the kid.

Until he's facing a NT in a 3-4 that is 320, 330, 340+ that is also strong in his own right, and out weighs ''the kid'' by 20, 30, or 40+ pounds. 

You asking him to block a guy like Derrick Brown 1v1 

It's not metric obsessed, I didn't mention his arm length as a concern, and even consider him a first two days prospect, but being that light in the a** while being asked to anchor an IOL on an NFL team at ''that weight'' and being worth the #6 pick....nah. 

[jayboogieman]

9 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

Until he's facing a NT in a 3-4 that is 320, 330, 340+ that is also strong in his own right, and out weighs ''the kid'' by 20, 30, or 40+ pounds. 

You asking him to block a guy like Derrick Brown 1v1 

It's not metric obsessed, I didn't mention his arm length as a concern, and even consider him a first two days prospect, but being that light in the a** while being asked to anchor an IOL on an NFL team at ''that weight'' and being worth the #6 pick....nah. 

Linderbaum also has technique and skill. That helps when facing someone that is heavier than you.

[SetfreexX]

9 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Linderbaum also has technique and skill. That helps when facing someone that is heavier than you.

Heavier, and likely stronger....

Seems you're a fan of ''the kid'' and that's fine, but you can't ignore, or well I suppose you can simple things like his size disadvantage. He's not worth a top 10 pick; could he be a good Center sure, but this isn't 1970 from a size perspective. 

[AU-panther]

 

31 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

Until he's facing a NT in a 3-4 that is 320, 330, 340+ that is also strong in his own right, and out weighs ''the kid'' by 20, 30, or 40+ pounds. 

You asking him to block a guy like Derrick Brown 1v1 

It's not metric obsessed, I didn't mention his arm length as a concern, and even consider him a first two days prospect, but being that light in the a** while being asked to anchor an IOL on an NFL team at ''that weight'' and being worth the #6 pick....nah. 

in college he might be going against guys that are within 10-20 pounds of him on a weekly basis, in the NFL it might be 30-40 lbs.  That might be the "cutoff" to cause him to be not as productive.

20 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Linderbaum also has technique and skill. That helps when facing someone that is heavier than you.

and the guy he is going against has technique and skill also.

He has great tape, and he might very well turn out to be a great pro.  As an evaluator you are gambling on whether the player can transition to a more difficult level.  If a player has ideal measurables that reduces the risk somewhat, now there are plenty of players with ideal measurables who fail, and plenty with bad measurables that succeed but here again you are just playing the adds, and when picking in the top-10 I would prefer to have every box checked.

Also pretty much every evaluation I have read about him says he is going to be somewhat scheme dependent, do you even know what scheme we are running next year?  What if we get a new coach that brings in a new scheme?  Do you really want to spend a top 10 pick on a guy that is scheme dependent?

 

 

[jayboogieman]

47 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

Heavier, and likely stronger....

Seems you're a fan of ''the kid'' and that's fine, but you can't ignore, or well I suppose you can simple things like his size disadvantage. He's not worth a top 10 pick; could he be a good Center sure, but this isn't 1970 from a size perspective. 

Most of these O-line prospects do not outweigh Linderbaum by a lot. Cross only weighs 307. Shouldn't take him. Ekwonu only weighs 310. He's too small to take too. This "size disadvantage" argument is bull. As you said, this isn't the 70s where these line guys were mostly fat. Teams and players know that being 350 or more is not healthy these days.

[jayboogieman]

34 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

in college he might be going against guys that are within 10-20 pounds of him on a weekly basis, in the NFL it might be 30-40 lbs.  That might be the "cutoff" to cause him to be not as productive.

Right. It's not like he can't get stronger or anything.

34 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Also pretty much every evaluation I have read about him says he is going to be somewhat scheme dependent, do you even know what scheme we are running next year?  What if we get a new coach that brings in a new scheme?  Do you really want to spend a top 10 pick on a guy that is scheme dependent?

Ryan Kalil was roughly the same size and weight. He wasn't scheme dependent at all. Nobody knows if Linderbaum will be scheme dependent or not until he's drafted and actually plays. As for spending a top 10 pick on him? If I felt he was the best option available, yes, I would do so.

[Wes21]

On 3/4/2022 at 12:32 PM, jayboogieman said:

Do you think it's getting harder and harder