[qwerty49]

Are we agreed that LT requires more than RT? My point is that as an example, Hall may be serviceable at RT but he wasn’t the answer at LT.  And comparing him to Murphy, Yankey and Bright is not fair; he’s not at their level. But he’s one of the two most experienced guys we have right now, and not even he can handle both T positions.

We may actually be in violent agreement about this.  I think BeegDawg provided good context as far as “yield” for incoming OL, ie that those 5 recruited linemen may produce 3 real contributors. And if those are the 3 functional newbies  you think are the bare minimum depth, then the 5 guys do indeed provide the equivalent depth of 1 good backup QB.

Gosh, you're in a quibbling mood.  I would simply observe that we rotate our entire 2-deep DL every game.  Not so for the DBs.  And if you think one tackle can effectively back up both spots, feel free -- but AT Hall has started at both LT and RT, and how has that worked out?  

I would stand with the point both CTCard and I made that 1/3 of our recruits can be linemen and we would not be missing anywhere else.

We rotate our entire 2-deep DL because there isn't much of a drop-off between the starters and the backups.  Last year and the year before, we pretty much didn't (and we spent much of our time in a 2-DL formation).

I'm not sure what your point is about AT Hall.  The fact that he has played both LT and RT, if anything, support the idea that in a pinch one guy can back up multiple positions on th eline.  Hell, Devery Hamilton is currently backing up Fanaika at LG as well as both tackle positions.  And whatever you may think of Hall, we have had guys move between positions on the offensive line successfully in the past: Kyle Murphy moved from RT to LT.  David Bright moved from LT to LG.  David Yankey also moved between tackle and guard.  The point is that even though the ratio of back-ups to starters is the same, 5 decent back-up offensive linemen gives you more depth than 1 decent back-up QB. 

BC

[qwerty49]

Are we agreed that LT requires more than RT? My point is that as an example, Hall may be serviceable at RT but he wasn’t the answer at LT.  And comparing him to Murphy, Yankey and Bright is not fair; he’s not at their level. But he’s one of the two most experienced guys we have right now, and not even he can handle both T positions.

We may actually be in violent agreement about this.  I think BeegDawg provided good context as far as “yield” for incoming OL, ie that those 5 recruited linemen may produce 3 real contributors. And if those are the 3 functional newbies  you think are the bare minimum depth, then the 5 guys do indeed provide the equivalent depth of 1 good backup QB.

Gosh, you're in a quibbling mood.  I would simply observe that we rotate our entire 2-deep DL every game.  Not so for the DBs.  And if you think one tackle can effectively back up both spots, feel free -- but AT Hall has started at both LT and RT, and how has that worked out?  

I would stand with the point both CTCard and I made that 1/3 of our recruits can be linemen and we would not be missing anywhere else.

We rotate our entire 2-deep DL because there isn't much of a drop-off between the starters and the backups.  Last year and the year before, we pretty much didn't (and we spent much of our time in a 2-DL formation).

I'm not sure what your point is about AT Hall.  The fact that he has played both LT and RT, if anything, support the idea that in a pinch one guy can back up multiple positions on th eline.  Hell, Devery Hamilton is currently backing up Fanaika at LG as well as both tackle positions.  And whatever you may think of Hall, we have had guys move between positions on the offensive line successfully in the past: Kyle Murphy moved from RT to LT.  David Bright moved from LT to LG.  David Yankey also moved between tackle and guard.  The point is that even though the ratio of back-ups to starters is the same, 5 decent back-up offensive linemen gives you more depth than 1 decent back-up QB. 

BC