Haven’t been able to do much daytime writing lately. Just doing my thing, nevermind me if that post makes no sense.

I think the difference comes from the offensive vs. defensive system. If you have a 5-man front and a weak link, the defense can attack it repeatedly with almost no fallout. On defense if there is a weak link it will be attacked but cannot be attacked every down and can be more easily compensated. If a DE/DT is weak you bring in your LBs/Troy to help out. All you can really do with the O-line is pray or waste a TE/RB helping out. Also, I think the D-line priorities are more straightforward, or can be. “Attack the LT/LG gap”, but every single O-line player needs to compensate for what the defense is doing and needs to know what their neighbors are doing. It seems like the D-line just attacks and lets the LBs if a blitz is happening be the brains of the operation.

I think you could play a guy like Stapleton at guard against a team we are physically dominant again where a guy like hartwig could help him out, but otherwise it’s too much of a liability.

One thing that bums me out is that we are having all of these injuries on the D-line. BUT, these injuries don’t give us an opportunity to have someone step up. We have a bunch of old guys that won’t be around for very long being a stopgap. There’s no 2nd round guy who gets his shot. When an LB goes down, a CB goes down, or god forbid a safety goes down, you have hope in the backups to show something and be future stars. When a D-line goes down, what happens? Great, Roye knocks someone unconcious. I don’t care how good the backups on D-line play, they are old old old and are not the future. It won’t be pretty, but at least on O-line we have guys like Essex, Starks (sort of), Stapleton, and (eek) Hills to bring it and show us the steelers of the future.

I understand the continuity/chemistry line of reasoning. My thoughts are however, that there are times/events/circumstances where the further development of both the individual players and the unit as a whole could be acheived without exposing the team or the QB to certain doom.

- With Starks, Stapleton and Essex usually (not always) active on game days, they could be employed as a “package.” Have them practice during the week on their protection schemes and put them on the field at the same time. This could be employed in preplanned down/distance/time situations. Not the same situation each week to set a pattern, but worked out in advance by the coacing staff so that the players/unit would be prepared for the play packages to be called.

-On games where we are either clearly coasting (week 1) or clearly roasting (week 3) I disagree that inserting one or more of these guys has a negative impact. I know in week 1 everyone played, so at least that part seems to be working. I wont continue to lament the beatdown of last week, but suffice it to say, these guys couldnt have been any worse than what was on display. Getting them a little game time exposure and getting the attention of the starters is not a bad thing imo.

Was being all puritanical and not having TV for a few months, but just caved. GOt my Sunday Ticket rigged up as of kickoffs of early games Sunday. Delish.

I don’t have much more to add. Continuity is important on OL, whereas a rotation is supported on DL to keep players fresh. The OL has to work as a group, communcating and shifting assignments, and though the entire defense works together, it’s more about each person doing a more straightforward assignment.

I think the love for Stapleton is just that we don’t have any other promising young guys in the reserves anymore. We know what Essex, Starks, and Colon bring, and Hills hasn’t looked good so far. We want desperately for Stapleton to be the savior of our OL. He’s looked promising for an UDFA, but he wasn’t given a serious chance at C or G this summer, so I doubt he’s ready to step in, and I doubt he’s going to be a Pro Bowler any time soon. Our best hope is that he could be a solid C once Hartwig leaves.

It’s part of their job description. They get tired and need to be rested. Most starting D-Lineman play about 75% of defensive snaps.

I think people are on to something earlier about O-lineman not being allowed to screw up where D-lineman are. Think about it. A D-lineman who makes 10 plays in a game is having potentially a career game. 3 sacks is a HUGE day. For an offensive lineman, allowing one sack is bad, and allowing 2 is terrible. So if a D-lineman makes a mistake, they are taken out of the play, and there’s a possibility that the offense moves the ball (there are still 3-4 other rushers to get at the QB if one fails). Each and every o-lineman needs to make their block for a pass play to work. Their job is most like the cornerbacks job on defense. If a CB screws up, the other team scores. If a LT screws up, the QB takes a nasty hit, a sack, and quite possibly a fumble.

Very few late round cornerbacks start NFL games soon after being drafted. And when they do, the results are often disastrous (See Bal @ Pit 2007)

I agree that the cohesion factor on the line and with the QB is a major factor with keeping the same players out there. I think it’s really rare to see a starting lineman benched anywhere in the NFL. (examples?)

The last time that we had a fluctuating line that drastically changed during a season was the year before we drafted Ben – I remember hearing all the commentators mentioning how bad our line situation was because we were shuffling players through positions every game it seemed (although this was due to injury initially).

The other thing about not seeing new offensive guys is that Z & A are stuck in their rut guys who don’t seem to be too accepting of necessary change.

I think only injury would cause a rookie to get time on that line.