Content Post Why does Wingspan matter for Tackles?

[signbabybrady]

No they’re not that different. Both are very bad reasons to bench a guy who took all your teams snaps in a fn Super Bowl.

If it was spite what was the reason for spite?
If it was discipline what was the reason for discipline?

Like I said you don't know the answer but leap to conclusions anyway.

Spite is defined as: deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend (someone).

Discipline is defined as: train (someone) to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.

Certainly they are very different.

 

[Wozzy]

Here is where we stand. I say wingspan is irrelevant because there is nothing an offensive tackle does that required him to extend his arms vertically to their limit. That the extra inch or 2 will never be the difference in making a play. My opinion can be disproven by showing examples of blocks that were made only because of wingspan. You could literally prove me wind is such examples existed. Failing to show examples exist would prove me right.

An offensive line punch is a technique used by offensive linemen to block pass rushers during pass protection. It involves using the hands to deliver a quick, powerful strike to the opponent's body, typically to gain leverage, redirect the rusher, and prevent them from reaching the quarterback. The punch is a critical component of pass protection, as it helps the offensive lineman maintain control and protect the pocket.

Boxers with longer reach have an advantage, so do linemen.

 

[Ring 6]

An offensive line punch is a technique used by offensive linemen to block pass rushers during pass protection. It involves using the hands to deliver a quick, powerful strike to the opponent's body, typically to gain leverage, redirect the rusher, and prevent them from reaching the quarterback. The punch is a critical component of pass protection, as it helps the offensive lineman maintain control and protect the pocket.

Boxers with longer reach have an advantage, so do linemen.

No disagreement but that is not a wingspan issue.

OL and boxers are totally different.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

The only similarity would be that Campbell would have as successful a career as Mankins.

But you make my point perfectly.

If Campbell were an all-pro and member of the Patriots Hall of Fame as a LG, a GREAT many Patsfans here would declare him a "bust" because he was drafted 28 spots higher than Mankins.

Because a LG should never be the #4 pick. Not complicated. Trade down or make a value pick. Your projections of "if" and "maybe" will not lead to a championship team. Hope is not a strategy.

 

[Wozzy]

No disagreement but that is not a wingspan issue.

OL and boxers are totally different.

Longer wingspan is better at tackle.

This isn’t controversial, or a debate amongst actual professional scouts.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

The stats aren't great on college LTs drafted in the first two rounds with wingspans under 33 inches - less than 1%.

But my guess is many of those short wingspans were attached to shorter LTs and those who had other technique faults.

In any event, Dante would certainly come down on the side of saying wingspan is just one factor, and would emphasize technique.

No absolutes: A lesson on o-line arm length with Dante Scarnecchia

Are Will Campbell's undersized arms a red flag? Phil Perry turned to coaching legend Dante Scarnecchia for an in-depth breakdown of arm length and its imapct.

www.nbcsportsboston.com

I think Campbell will be an upgrade this year but I'm still open to the notion that even as a #4 pick, there's a possibility that his role might be to lock down the LG position as LT is a critical but tough position to fill.

If fans consider that a "bust" I'd just ask them if they felt like Logan Mankins was a bust too!

You’re talking about arm length not wingspan.

 

[WhatJustHappened]

You’re talking about arm length not wingspan.

It's all good, dumbass is fine..used to dumbass.

 

[Ring 6]

Longer wingspan is better at tackle.

This isn’t controversial, or a debate amongst actual professional scouts.

0.01 second in the 40 is better. It defines nothing.

 

[Wozzy]

0.01 second in the 40 is better. It defines nothing.

Then why do you keep posting the bare minimum…. 0.01 seconds, one inch arms?

Trent Brown was as wide as a house, it was a distinct advantage to him.

Better is better, whether you like it or not. Ultimately the player is the sum of his parts, not just his wingspan or inline speed… but saying these things don’t matter isn’t accurate. It all matters.

 

[sb1]

Then why do you keep posting the bare minimum…. 0.01 seconds, one inch arms?

Trent Brown was as wide as a house, it was a distinct advantage to him.

Better is better, whether you like it or not. Ultimately the player is the sum of his parts, not just his wingspan or inline speed… but saying these things don’t matter isn’t accurate. It all matters.

Longer is better for sure even Scar said so. Shorter is a hurdle but it can be overcome. Like QB arm strength.

 

[Wozzy]

Longer is better for sure even Scar said so. Shorter is a hurdle but it can be overcome. Like QB arm strength.

Like I said… the total package matters most. Wingspan is simply a part of that.

 

[sb1]

Like I said… the total package matters most. Wingspan is simply a part of that.

Yes. Like with arm strength there are fewer challenges to overcome with a long wingspan. I agree that it matters. Parcells even said it's one of the most important measurements for a tackle prospect.

 

[aluminum seats]

 

[JoeSixPat]

Because a LG should never be the #4 pick. Not complicated. Trade down or make a value pick. Your projections of "if" and "maybe" will not lead to a championship team. Hope is not a strategy.

Like I said, if Campbell has the same career as Mankins, you and many other Patsfans will declare him a "bust"

I just have a different definition of a bust.

But as you so aptly illustrate, it's not difficult to imagine the outrage some fans would have towards Logan Mankins had he been drafted in the Top Ten.

 

[patfanken]

Here's the thing. IIRC every single scouting site knew EXACTLY what Cambell's stats were prior to the draft, and yet ALL of them had Campbell going, if not at 4, in the top 10 or so, and most had him as the first OT off the board.

So if the wing span is such a cut and dried statistic that is a virtual full pro indicator of failure and success, why was Campbell universally rated as a low first round, high second round prospect. I mean based on THIS thread it is a no brainer. Are you telling me that members of a fan web site are simply smarter and more astute than hundreds of guys who do it full time/year round as a profession??? I guess you are.

BTW- I was thinking about pass blocking technique. In my day instead of the "punch", we would pop our faces into the chest of the rusher since you were not allowed to extend your arms. The skill was to be athletic enough NOT to get over extended that you lost your balance and space. The object was to explode and pop back. Take the rushers momentum away with the initial hit, but still keep your gap between yourself and the rusher so you can change direction as the rusher makes his moves. Sometimes I wonder the almost universal passivity of today's pass defenders might find an initial aggressive move occasionally effective, especially when the rusher is aligned withing the body's frame. I'm wondering about the efficacy of why a today's version of that technique might not be effective against certain alignments. Just thinking out loud

 

[sb1]

Campbell was picked at #4 overall therefore the team has to see him as their long term answer at LT and nothing less. It may not pan out that way but that had to be their mindset even knowing his wingspan limitation. Hopefully they're right.

 

[Kasmir]

The comparison for a Patriots guard drafted at #4 overall should be John Hannah, who was the 4th pick in the 1973 draft.

Most of you are too young to have watched him play, but he was absolutely dominant and proably the best guard of all time.

The year after he retired the Pats rushed for 1000 yards less than in his last year. He was that good.

 

[maust]

The comparison for a Patriots guard drafted at #4 overall should be John Hannah, who was the 4th pick in the 1973 draft.

Most of you are too young to have watched him play, but he was absolutely dominant and proably the best guard of all time.

Definitely the best guard of all time and arguably the greatest offensive lineman. I know I've never seen better and I am old enough to remember Jumbo Jim Otto in his glory days. Hannah was an absolute beast and on the field he was meaner than a junkyard dog, the DNFW offensive player of his day. He was so good that Brian Holloway went to three straight Pro Bowls at LT just because he played next to Hog and got himself a fat Raiders contract but was completely out of football at 29 without Hannah carrying his ass. Hannah was a force unto himself and if he had played for someone other than the clown show Sullivans he'd be more well known than Allen or Munoz.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Like I said, if Campbell has the same career as Mankins, you and many other Patsfans will declare him a "bust"

I just have a different definition of a bust.

But as you so aptly illustrate, it's not difficult to imagine the outrage some fans would have towards Logan Mankins had he been drafted in the Top Ten.

I would never declare Campbell is a bust if he had the same career as Mankins. I am not sure why you say that. It appears as though you feel the need to argue on the opposite side of other posters, so you make up how other posters feel which is the opposite to your feelings.

My point is that if Campbell ends up a OG, then we might have been better off selecting a different prospect with higher upside. I hope Campbell succeeds, but drafting a player at #4 to be a LG is a disasterous move. We got Gonzo at #17. If Campbell is not a LT, then that selection reflects poorly on Vrabel.

Your propensity to tell other posters what they will declare in the future is odd.

 

[maust]

Your propensity to tell other posters what they will declare in the future is odd.

I don't know man. We've got guys here that know better in real time what the rest of us were truly thinking versus whatever nonsense we posted and don't hesitate to proclaim it. Seems like for them projecting other folk's future declarations would be cake in comparison.