[OutsiderFan]

After observing football for nearly 40 years, it is my opinion that the whole "offensive line gelling" thing is an excuse for poor performance more than a meaningful reality.  The best players play the best.  While there is certainly some level of comfort gained from playing with the same guys next to you, the best teams are able to plug new players in and not miss a beat, or at least can overcome having new players in a unit.

If you buy this analysis, the "playing together" aspect may not be as important as the "ready to play" aspect.  We all assumed Josh Garnett and Kyle Murphy would be great in 2014.  When the OL struggled, people couldn't accept the fact they weren't good enough because they were both 5 star recruits, so the fallback was "they just haven't played together enough yet."  Remember, Garnett and Murphy were not tremendously experienced starters in 2014 either.  This "waiting to gel" concept allows fault to be placed on nobody other than out of control circumstances.  Why is it so hard to just say "they weren't good enough at their positions yet?" 

Nate Herbig is expected to be good in 2017 because he proved himself as a starter in 2016.  If say Bright and Hamilton are better than Hall and Tucker in 2016, the OL will be better against Rice than against Kansas State in 2016.  No gelling needed.

On a slightly tangential note... Until better data was available, returning OL starts were always thought of as a good leading indicator of a team's performance.  Turns out there might be better ones, at least in one person's data set. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-tcu-texas

[OutsiderFan]

After observing football for nearly 40 years, it is my opinion that the whole "offensive line gelling" thing is an excuse for poor performance more than a meaningful reality.  The best players play the best.  While there is certainly some level of comfort gained from playing with the same guys next to you, the best teams are able to plug new players in and not miss a beat, or at least can overcome having new players in a unit.

If you buy this analysis, the "playing together" aspect may not be as important as the "ready to play" aspect.  We all assumed Josh Garnett and Kyle Murphy would be great in 2014.  When the OL struggled, people couldn't accept the fact they weren't good enough because they were both 5 star recruits, so the fallback was "they just haven't played together enough yet."  Remember, Garnett and Murphy were not tremendously experienced starters in 2014 either.  This "waiting to gel" concept allows fault to be placed on nobody other than out of control circumstances.  Why is it so hard to just say "they weren't good enough at their positions yet?" 

Nate Herbig is expected to be good in 2017 because he proved himself as a starter in 2016.  If say Bright and Hamilton are better than Hall and Tucker in 2016, the OL will be better against Rice than against Kansas State in 2016.  No gelling needed.

On a slightly tangential note... Until better data was available, returning OL starts were always thought of as a good leading indicator of a team's performance.  Turns out there might be better ones, at least in one person's data set. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-tcu-texas