LT Chris Williams Released Today by Bears

[Cheesebeef]

With our luck he'll get hurt during the workout.

Do people get how many injuries we've already had? Both tackles...

why do people keep saying both tackles? Bridges wasn't even the starter in pre-season or training camp. Batiste had "beaten" him out. That's what's even more amazing... Batiste was THE plan at RT before Levi got hurt. That's ridiculous.

 

[az1965]

Bridges lost the RT job to Massie not the LT to Batiste.

Batiste was starting at RT in preseason before Levi got hurt and then he was moved to LT with Massie taking over RT.

 

[Duckjake]

Im more concerned with Skelton. The only QB in the NFL who throws it away from pressure, and it still gets picked.

Reduce the pressure and it won't happen.

I'm talking about pass protection and our QBs being forced to throw the ball away being as bad as sacks and because the post had Kolb's name in it the first response is to bash Skelton.

 

[52brandon]

Reduce the pressure and it won't happen.

I'm talking about pass protection and our QBs being forced to throw the ball away being as bad as sacks and because the post had Kolb's name in it the first response is to bash Skelton.

it will at least happen less often. I hope they give the guy a little time this sunday

 

[JeffGollin]

Jurecki linked to a Chicago Tribune story by Dan Pompei which basically says the Bears failed Williams as much as vice-versa. He was injuried his rookie season and never got the chance to develop at his best position left tackle. The Bears played him only 7 games at left tackle then moved him all over the place stunting any opportunity he had to develop into a decent starting left tackle. If left tackle is really his best position, plug him in there and pull Batiste.

This report was pretty much confirmed by Bear OC Mike Tice, but you have to wonder:

Tice did a classy thing by talking up Williams after he released him, but - considering that the Bears OL isn't considered to be all that stellar and that they're giving up on a #14 pick - you have to wonder if there's an untold back-story here.

By all means, bring him in. (At the very least, he'd provide us with some OT depth). But be careful what you wish for.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I bet the Eagles don't let him leave today. smh

 

[Russ Smith]

Batiste was starting at RT in preseason before Levi got hurt and then he was moved to LT with Massie taking over RT.

Right but Bridges got moved to guard from RT. Massie moved ahead of Bridges at RT.

I do think if Bridges were healthy he'd be the starting LT right now because Batiste has been so bad they would have gone with the more experienced guy even though he too is not very good.

Remember Young actually got first crack at LT he sucked and Batiste looked good compared to him.

I'm not sayinb Bridges was good but I do believe he'd be our starting LT right now.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

We could win on 4 sacks per game. We avg 6-7 right now. Thats basically an additional 2 or 3 dead drives which we wind up punting.

Weve been in each of these 2 losses. 4 Sacks? Wed be 6-0 right now.



If I remember correctly, Winston was a FA for about 5 minutes before he was snatched up. He got an offer he couldnt refuse.

With that said. Hed be a galactic upgrade over Massie, but hes not AS good as hes being paid now.

He was out there for a week, after his release, before signing.

 

[joeshmo]

He was out there for a week, after his release, before signing.

He is also a pure zone blocking OT, who went to a zone blocking team. We are not a pure zone blocking scheme and he would have struggled here.

 

[kerouac9]

Bridges lost the RT job to Massie not the LT to Batiste. Personally I think as I said repeatedly we would have eventually put Bridges at LT if he wasn't out for the year.

Name another NFL team that has had their #1 and #2 QB miss several games with injury. Skelton missed 4 games and Kolb is now going to miss several. Show me the same team that has both their #1 and #2 RB out.

I don't see what not having injuries the last 2 years has to do with having so many this season to starters?

Bridges lost the RT job to Batiste, who was in front of Massie, who was in front of Bridges then. Bridges was running 3rd team RT before the injury. That's the fact of the matter; you can spin it however you want.

The Chiefs have lost their #1 QB to injury for several games. The Steelers have had their platoon of RBs injured, as has San Diego. I'm not sure why it all has to be the same team. St. Louis went through numerous starters in the secondary last year, as did, IIRC, Minnesota. There's nothing special about the QB situation than any of these other ones. I'm not sure why that's particularly relevant as a data point.

Statistics show that every team misses several starters to injury over the course of the season. It's not some special strength and conditioning program that makes some teams healthy for an entire year, and then some teams get hammered by injury. Eventually, every team is going to suffer injuries, and you could consider healthy seasons as going into a "bank", where the starters are going to get dinged up the next year. The Cards were really remarkably healthy in that 2008 Super Bowl run. The Cards were remarkably healthy the last two years. Now they're having to pay for those healthy seasons.

One of the reasons that I'm bearish on the San Francisco 49ers and was bullish on Seattle at the beginning of the year was that San Francisco was incredibly healthy last year. That's just not sustainable in a league when guys play 10-12 weeks with nagging injuries and you're going to get 3-4 starters on injured reserve over the course of the year. Maybe it happens next year; maybe it happens this year (Staley has been limited by injury this year, right? And they lost a starting OLB to IR in the preseason?) and we don't notice because they have good depth.

 

[Russ Smith]

Bridges lost the RT job to Batiste, who was in front of Massie, who was in front of Bridges then. Bridges was running 3rd team RT before the injury. That's the fact of the matter; you can spin it however you want.

The Chiefs have lost their #1 QB to injury for several games. The Steelers have had their platoon of RBs injured, as has San Diego. I'm not sure why it all has to be the same team. St. Louis went through numerous starters in the secondary last year, as did, IIRC, Minnesota. There's nothing special about the QB situation than any of these other ones. I'm not sure why that's particularly relevant as a data point.

Statistics show that every team misses several starters to injury over the course of the season. It's not some special strength and conditioning program that makes some teams healthy for an entire year, and then some teams get hammered by injury. Eventually, every team is going to suffer injuries, and you could consider healthy seasons as going into a "bank", where the starters are going to get dinged up the next year. The Cards were really remarkably healthy in that 2008 Super Bowl run. The Cards were remarkably healthy the last two years. Now they're having to pay for those healthy seasons.

One of the reasons that I'm bearish on the San Francisco 49ers and was bullish on Seattle at the beginning of the year was that San Francisco was incredibly healthy last year. That's just not sustainable in a league when guys play 10-12 weeks with nagging injuries and you're going to get 3-4 starters on injured reserve over the course of the year. Maybe it happens next year; maybe it happens this year (Staley has been limited by injury this year, right? And they lost a starting OLB to IR in the preseason?) and we don't notice because they have good depth.

huh? You're arguing that the Cards injury situation isn't unusual and you don't understand why it all has to be to the same team?

If the Chiefs had 2 injured QB's(not at the same time) AND the RB" injuries(at the same time) then they'd be in the situation we are. but they haven't.

Same with San Diego etc. of the teams you mentioned none of them have had the injuries we've had to key guys like starting Qb's and at one point having our top 3 RB's and our top FB all out.

the fact that we're 4-2 and could easily be 5-1 in that situation is pretty impressive but it IS unusual.

I'm not saying there's some magic potion to fix it I'm pointing out that we're not in a normal situation 6 games in with so many key injuries.

the way regression to the mean typically works in the NFL is that you go back to a normal amount of injuries not you get decimated at RB, QB, lose Tackles etc in the first 6 games of the season.

I agree with you Sf was really healthy last year and I said it too this offseason. I also predicted they might get greedy and go away from the run game a bit and find out Alex is still a crappy QB, that's exactly what happened before last night, and he was still crappy.

That doesn't change that our first 6 weeks have been unusual with respect to number of injuries at critical positions.

 

[Mulli]

Has anyone seen the Chiefs record lately?

 

[kerouac9]

huh? You're arguing that the Cards injury situation isn't unusual and you don't understand why it all has to be to the same team?

If the Chiefs had 2 injured QB's(not at the same time) AND the RB" injuries(at the same time) then they'd be in the situation we are. but they haven't.

Same with San Diego etc. of the teams you mentioned none of them have had the injuries we've had to key guys like starting Qb's and at one point having our top 3 RB's and our top FB all out.

the fact that we're 4-2 and could easily be 5-1 in that situation is pretty impressive but it IS unusual.

I'm not saying there's some magic potion to fix it I'm pointing out that we're not in a normal situation 6 games in with so many key injuries.

the way regression to the mean typically works in the NFL is that you go back to a normal amount of injuries not you get decimated at RB, QB, lose Tackles etc in the first 6 games of the season.

I agree with you Sf was really healthy last year and I said it too this offseason. I also predicted they might get greedy and go away from the run game a bit and find out Alex is still a crappy QB, that's exactly what happened before last night, and he was still crappy.

That doesn't change that our first 6 weeks have been unusual with respect to number of injuries at critical positions.

We could just as easily be 1-5 with the situation that we had. The results against Miami, New England, and Seattle were essentially toss-ups that ended up going our way.

The positions are only "critical" because you call them that. It's not wildly unpredictable that a guy like Kevin Kolb who has been injured in every opportunity that he's had for extended playing time got injured. It's not unpredictable that Ryan Williams, who has suffered meaningful injury the last three years, got injured. It's not unpredictable that Beanie Wells, who's been injured nearly every time he's seen significant action, got injured.

It's criminally negligent that this team didn't have an answer for that scenario, especially at running back. And people like cheese were talking about it all preseason.

I can't really speculate that John Skelton couldn't have played after one or two weeks following his injury. I'm guessing that if he had to, he would've been able to play. He didn't have to because Kolb was playing adequate football.

The truly brutal injuries were to Levi Brown and, to a lesser extent, Jeremy Bridges. Having 2 usual stalwarts end up on injured reserve was a devastating blow. But having Adrian Wilson miss a game, probably having Kerry Rhodes miss a game this week, having Darnell Dockett miss a game isn't unpredictable. I think all of those guys are over 30.

No one in the NFL is going to hear your cries of "woe is me!" when three of your 30-plus players are nicked up at the quarter pole of the season.

 

[PDXChris]

Has anyone seen the Chiefs record lately?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+kansas+city+cheifs+record

Here you go

 

[Russ Smith]

We could just as easily be 1-5 with the situation that we had. The results against Miami, New England, and Seattle were essentially toss-ups that ended up going our way.

The positions are only "critical" because you call them that. It's not wildly unpredictable that a guy like Kevin Kolb who has been injured in every opportunity that he's had for extended playing time got injured. It's not unpredictable that Ryan Williams, who has suffered meaningful injury the last three years, got injured. It's not unpredictable that Beanie Wells, who's been injured nearly every time he's seen significant action, got injured.

It's criminally negligent that this team didn't have an answer for that scenario, especially at running back. And people like cheese were talking about it all preseason.

I can't really speculate that John Skelton couldn't have played after one or two weeks following his injury. I'm guessing that if he had to, he would've been able to play. He didn't have to because Kolb was playing adequate football.

The truly brutal injuries were to Levi Brown and, to a lesser extent, Jeremy Bridges. Having 2 usual stalwarts end up on injured reserve was a devastating blow. But having Adrian Wilson miss a game, probably having Kerry Rhodes miss a game this week, having Darnell Dockett miss a game isn't unpredictable. I think all of those guys are over 30.

No one in the NFL is going to hear your cries of "woe is me!" when three of your 30-plus players are nicked up at the quarter pole of the season.

So you're now contending that QB, RB and LT are not critical positions in the NFL?

Seriously?

Go to Football Outsiders and tell the guys there that and see what their response is.

I'm not crying woe is me I'm pointing out 4-2 with this amount of injuries is pretty damn good. Most of the teams you're tossing out as counters are not 4-2.

If you'll just kindly produce a list of other teams 4-2 or better who've had the same amount of injuries at Qb, RB and LT etc then I'll shut up about it being unusual.

I'll give you the first team on the list to help you, Arizona Cardinals.

 

[Russ Smith]

Has anyone seen the Chiefs record lately?

That's irrelevant their 1-5 is the same as our 4-2 because cassell had a concussion.

Apparently that is.

 

[kerouac9]

So you're now contending that QB, RB and LT are not critical positions in the NFL?

Seriously?

Go to Football Outsiders and tell the guys there that and see what their response is.

I'm not crying woe is me I'm pointing out 4-2 with this amount of injuries is pretty damn good. Most of the teams you're tossing out as counters are not 4-2.

If you'll just kindly produce a list of other teams 4-2 or better who've had the same amount of injuries at Qb, RB and LT etc then I'll shut up about it being unusual.

I'll give you the first team on the list to help you, Arizona Cardinals.

What is with you today? You're sounding completely unhinged. I'm just having an interesting discussion here. If you're going to get all worked up, I can put you on ignore and you can have a break.

Is 4-2 that different than 3-3? If that's the case, then I'll happily point to the San Diego Chargers and New York Jets as examples of teams that have suffered serious injury setbacks at critical positions to their respective teams and survived and performed pretty well.

Is quarterback as "critical" a position to the Arizona Cardinals as it is to the New England Patriots or Pittsburgh Steelers, considering who their starters are against ours? I'd argue that it isn't. The difference between Skelton and Kolb is/was small enough that the Week 1 decision was essentially a coin flip. I think that the Football Outsiders guys would say that, as well.

Is running back a "critical" position to the Arizona Cardinals? The team went 8-8 last season while being 24th in rushing yardage and 28th in attempts. Is it as critical to the Arizona Cardinals as it is for the Baltimore Ravens or Houston Texans? I don't think so. And I bet the Football Outsiders guys would agree with me.

As I said the portion of my post that you apparently didn't read, the offensive line injuries that the Cards suffered were the most brutal. They had to replace their best OL player with their worst. But with this team, quarterback and and running back are probably less critical than the injures to the safeties and Dockett. That's just the way the team is built. Going from a C- in Kolb to a D+ in Skelton just isn't that much of a fall-off. Going from a C- to a D- in losing Beanie and Williams to Smith an WiPo is a steeper drop, but it's not devestating.

Going from a C+ in Levi Brown to an F- in D'Anthony Batiste is awful. Going from an A in Dockett to a C+ in Vonnie Holliday clearly hurt. Going from a B+ in Wilson/Rhodes to a C- in Rashad Johnson has hurt.

We've been able to stay in games and win some of them despite the injuries because the positions that we're injured in clearly aren't as critical as you're making them out to be. This isn't going from Peyton Manning to Curtis Painter. It's not even going from Matt Schaub to T.J. Yates. It's going from John Skelton to Kevin Kolb back to John Skelton.

We're 4-2 on a two-game losing streak that looks like it has a little while to go before it turns around. We haven't won a game since Beanie Wells went to injured reserve. I'm not sure why you're eager to pat the team on the back for being where many thought we would be.

 

[Russ Smith]

What is with you today? You're sounding completely unhinged. I'm just having an interesting discussion here. If you're going to get all worked up, I can put you on ignore and you can have a break.

Is 4-2 that different than 3-3? If that's the case, then I'll happily point to the San Diego Chargers and New York Jets as examples of teams that have suffered serious injury setbacks at critical positions to their respective teams and survived and performed pretty well.

Is quarterback as "critical" a position to the Arizona Cardinals as it is to the New England Patriots or Pittsburgh Steelers, considering who their starters are against ours? I'd argue that it isn't. The difference between Skelton and Kolb is/was small enough that the Week 1 decision was essentially a coin flip. I think that the Football Outsiders guys would say that, as well.

Is running back a "critical" position to the Arizona Cardinals? The team went 8-8 last season while being 24th in rushing yardage and 28th in attempts. Is it as critical to the Arizona Cardinals as it is for the Baltimore Ravens or Houston Texans? I don't think so. And I bet the Football Outsiders guys would agree with me.

As I said the portion of my post that you apparently didn't read, the offensive line injuries that the Cards suffered were the most brutal. They had to replace their best OL player with their worst. But with this team, quarterback and and running back are probably less critical than the injures to the safeties and Dockett. That's just the way the team is built. Going from a C- in Kolb to a D+ in Skelton just isn't that much of a fall-off. Going from a C- to a D- in losing Beanie and Williams to Smith an WiPo is a steeper drop, but it's not devestating.

Going from a C+ in Levi Brown to an F- in D'Anthony Batiste is awful. Going from an A in Dockett to a C+ in Vonnie Holliday clearly hurt. Going from a B+ in Wilson/Rhodes to a C- in Rashad Johnson has hurt.

We've been able to stay in games and win some of them despite the injuries because the positions that we're injured in clearly aren't as critical as you're making them out to be. This isn't going from Peyton Manning to Curtis Painter. It's not even going from Matt Schaub to T.J. Yates. It's going from John Skelton to Kevin Kolb back to John Skelton.

We're 4-2 on a two-game losing streak that looks like it has a little while to go before it turns around. We haven't won a game since Beanie Wells went to injured reserve. I'm not sure why you're eager to pat the team on the back for being where many thought we would be.

Im completely hinged I'm just baffled at how you can question if QB, RB and LT are critical positions.

The Jets aren't playing without Sanchez, their top 2 RB's and their top LT. yes they have injuries but not at those positions.

Last I checked Brady and Ben are starting not out injured so that's a non argument.

Last I checked Rice and Foster are still playing too, I should know I have Foster on both my fantasy teams. So that's a non argument too. You're throwing out hypothetical injuries compared to real ones.

There isn't another team in the NFL who at the 7 week mark of the season has had both QB's hurt and their top 3 Rb's, their top FB and their starting LT. Considering how bad the offense is I'd say yes those are critical injuries.

Then add in missing Dockett for games, Wilson one and now apparently Rhodes. The Chiefs are 1-5 not 3-3.

We're in games because the defense is really good and our Qb's have limited turnovers until last week. We don't have a QB throwing 3 picks in a game costing us the game. We've been in them all, last week when we needed the big drive, Skelton threw the pick.

And yes we could be 1-5 but we're not, we've fought through a bunch of injuries to be 4-2.

I get that pointing out injuries doesn't make them go away but that doesn't mean we aren't having an unusual amount of injuries. Powell is our 4th string RB and he's probably the starter this week.

I have no idea how this season finishes but if you'd told the board preseason we'd have this many injuries almost nobody here would have guessed 4-2.

 

[kerouac9]

Im completely hinged I'm just baffled at how you can question if QB, RB and LT are critical positions.

The Jets aren't playing without Sanchez, their top 2 RB's and their top LT. yes they have injuries but not at those positions.

Last I checked Brady and Ben are starting not out injured so that's a non argument.

Last I checked Rice and Foster are still playing too, I should know I have Foster on both my fantasy teams. So that's a non argument too. You're throwing out hypothetical injuries compared to real ones.

There isn't another team in the NFL who at the 7 week mark of the season has had both QB's hurt and their top 3 Rb's, their top FB and their starting LT. Considering how bad the offense is I'd say yes those are critical injuries.

Then add in missing Dockett for games, Wilson one and now apparently Rhodes. The Chiefs are 1-5 not 3-3.

We're in games because the defense is really good and our Qb's have limited turnovers until last week. We don't have a QB throwing 3 picks in a game costing us the game. We've been in them all, last week when we needed the big drive, Skelton threw the pick.

And yes we could be 1-5 but we're not, we've fought through a bunch of injuries to be 4-2.

I get that pointing out injuries doesn't make them go away but that doesn't mean we aren't having an unusual amount of injuries. Powell is our 4th string RB and he's probably the starter this week.

I have no idea how this season finishes but if you'd told the board preseason we'd have this many injuries almost nobody here would have guessed 4-2.

It's like you're not even listening to the argument that I'm trying to make here. You're so on track with what you're trying to "prove" that you can't let any other signal enter the airspace. If it'll make you happy:

No, to my knowledge, out of the 32 NFL teams in the 2012 NFL season, of the 8 teams with 4-2 records or better, none of them have had injuries to specifically their starting left tackle, quarterback, and top running backs.

Congratulations, you limited the data set to one. Way to go. It's not worth talking about comperable situations or constructing thought experiments when you can say that one team is doing the best out of an example set of one.

So, well done, I guess? I hope that victory feels amazing?

 

[Russ Smith]

It's like you're not even listening to the argument that I'm trying to make here. You're so on track with what you're trying to "prove" that you can't let any other signal enter the airspace. If it'll make you happy:

No, to my knowledge, out of the 32 NFL teams in the 2012 NFL season, of the 8 teams with 4-2 records or better, none of them have had injuries to specifically their starting left tackle, quarterback, and top running backs.

Congratulations, you limited the data set to one. Way to go. It's not worth talking about comperable situations or constructing thought experiments when you can say that one team is doing the best out of an example set of one.

So, well done, I guess? I hope that victory feels amazing?

The mirror called it said to look in it.

You are saying our injury situation isn't unusual it's just regression to the mean. So I asked for other examples of teams and you're giving me a RB on this team a QB on that one a T somewhere else and you somehow don't seem to grasp it's a lot worse when it's all on the SAME team.

I didn't limit the data set to one I asked for a comparable example and you didn't provide one because there isn't one.

 

[kerouac9]

The mirror called it said to look in it.

You are saying our injury situation isn't unusual it's just regression to the mean. So I asked for other examples of teams and you're giving me a RB on this team a QB on that one a T somewhere else and you somehow don't seem to grasp it's a lot worse when it's all on the SAME team.

I didn't limit the data set to one I asked for a comparable example and you didn't provide one because there isn't one.

You're not asking for a comparable example, you're asking for an identical one. Same record, same players, same positions. In a sample size of eight teams, that's not possible. The sample size is too small.

If you want an actual comparable example, I'd recommend you look at the New York Jets, who are 3-3 despite losing their best player for the season in Revis, their best offensive skill position player in Holmes, and have their second best offensive skill position player hurting in Shonn Greene.

Not identical, but comparable.

 

[kerouac9]

As long as we're talking about comparable situations, you may want to look at the 2012 Baltimore Ravens. Their two best players are Joe Flacco and Ray Rice, but they've lost Ladarius Webb (their best DB) to IR, Bryant McKinnie is injured, Haloti Ngata (the best player on their defense), Ray Lewis is on IR, their nose tackle Kemoeatu is hurt (questionable for Sunday), and Terrell Suggs (maybe their second-best defensive player after Ngata) is injured.

That's four of their top six defensive players that are out for good or significant periods of time. The Ravens have 9 players on IR right now, not counting T-Sizzle.

They're 5-1.

Comparable.

 

[Chopper0080]

As long as we're talking about comparable situations, you may want to look at the 2012 Baltimore Ravens. Their two best players are Joe Flacco and Ray Rice, but they've lost Ladarius Webb (their best DB) to IR, Bryant McKinnie is injured, Haloti Ngata (the best player on their defense), Ray Lewis is on IR, their nose tackle Kemoeatu is hurt (questionable for Sunday), and Terrell Suggs (maybe their second-best defensive player after Ngata) is injured.

That's four of their top six defensive players that are out for good or significant periods of time. The Ravens have 9 players on IR right now, not counting T-Sizzle.

They're 5-1.

Comparable.

Lets be real in this arguement, Webb and Lewis were both injured last week, so it is not like they got to 5-1 without them.

 

[kerouac9]

Lets be real in this arguement, Webb and Lewis were both injured last week, so it is not like they got to 5-1 without them.

And that's fair, but Ryan Williams was injured right on the cusp of a two-game losing streak, and Beanie got hurt when we were 3-0, IIRC. To me, the Ravens' losing Terrell Suggs so far is a bigger loss (at least individual player-skill wise) than us losing Levi Brown.

 

[splitsecond]

Skill wise? yes. Position importance? Hell no. Other defenders can make up for the absence of someone through schemes, etc. You only have one LT, and you can't scheme help on that side without losing an option on where to send the ball.