What's your starting O-line when everyone is healthy?

[kidhawk]

I'd like to see the frenchman get some reps at guard. He's performed at Center, and if we can get him reps for Sweezy or McQ, I'd like to see that.

I was thinking that too, but I backed off that thought, mainly because Unger has missed time twice already this season. We need Lem to be healthy and ready to go in at center at a moment's notice. It would be devastating to have Lem get hurt then lose Unger as well.

 

[Lieutenant Dan]

I'd like to see the frenchman get some reps at guard. He's performed at Center, and if we can get him reps for Sweezy or McQ, I'd like to see that.

I was thinking that too, but I backed off that thought, mainly because Unger has missed time twice already this season. We need Lem to be healthy and ready to go in at center at a moment's notice. It would be devastating to have Lem get hurt then lose Unger as well.

I'm 100% in agreement with you, kidhawk. They don't need to get TOO cute with this.

 

[MysterMatt]

I think LJP has earned more playing time, but given that he's our only reliable backup center, the last thing I want at this time is for him to be on the field if it isn't necessary. The only way it makes sense to me is if he take ~30% of snaps at C to reduce wear and tear on Unger.

I think Pete has said as much as well. LJP is too important to put him at guard.

 

[hawk45]

3 weeks ago, the common complaint was that the Seahawks had no line depth and Cable might be overrated. (Though Bailey still should have been in for McQuistan earlier...)

This week, we're having the conversation about how to get all our guys playing time. It's a great problem to have.

The fact that the conversation changed so much so quickly makes me mistrust the conclusions.

The OL depth looked pretty good against Atlanta. Against everybody else it looked terrible, our pass protection was the worst in the league. IIRC, Bailey only was in for one series against the Bucs. So Bailey hasn't had to play LT against a decent defensive line yet.

It'd be one thing if last week's performance came against a better defensive front. Then I think the warm fuzzies about Cable and the OL and our fantastic plug and play line would be warranted. But it seems like we're basing our optimism on one game against a bad defensive team. I mean we sure must be basing it on one game, because that was the only performance by the depth the entire year that wasn't cover-your-eyes atrocious.

 

[ak3000]

One thing to keep in mind is we usually go into games with just 7 active OL. So with that in mind

Okung-McQ-Ung-Sweez-Giac

JP and Carp the backups

If you have someone go down in the game McQ swings out and Carp to LG. JP backup C is a must. Bailey and Bowie will be inactive or Okung and Giac will be inactive.

 

[kf3339]

3 weeks ago, the common complaint was that the Seahawks had no line depth and Cable might be overrated. (Though Bailey still should have been in for McQuistan earlier...)

This week, we're having the conversation about how to get all our guys playing time. It's a great problem to have.

The fact that the conversation changed so much so quickly makes me mistrust the conclusions.

The OL depth looked pretty good against Atlanta. Against everybody else it looked terrible, our pass protection was the worst in the league. IIRC, Bailey only was in for one series against the Bucs. So Bailey hasn't had to play LT against a decent defensive line yet.

It'd be one thing if last week's performance came against a better defensive front. Then I think the warm fuzzies about Cable and the OL and our fantastic plug and play line would be warranted. But it seems like we're basing our optimism on one game against a bad defensive team. I mean we sure must be basing it on one game, because that was the only performance by the depth the entire year that wasn't cover-your-eyes atrocious.

:13:

 

[Lieutenant Dan]

3 weeks ago, the common complaint was that the Seahawks had no line depth and Cable might be overrated. (Though Bailey still should have been in for McQuistan earlier...)

This week, we're having the conversation about how to get all our guys playing time. It's a great problem to have.

The fact that the conversation changed so much so quickly makes me mistrust the conclusions.

The OL depth looked pretty good against Atlanta. Against everybody else it looked terrible, our pass protection was the worst in the league. IIRC, Bailey only was in for one series against the Bucs. So Bailey hasn't had to play LT against a decent defensive line yet.

It'd be one thing if last week's performance came against a better defensive front. Then I think the warm fuzzies about Cable and the OL and our fantastic plug and play line would be warranted. But it seems like we're basing our optimism on one game against a bad defensive team. I mean we sure must be basing it on one game, because that was the only performance by the depth the entire year that wasn't cover-your-eyes atrocious.

That may be valid, but I'm having fun being an over-excited fan on this thread anyway :179422:

 

[Happypuppy]

I am going to a rotation. I think Unger is hurt and hiding it. The poor snaps are evident. He suddenly forgot how?

Okung - Bailey. The kid will get some time, as if nothing else to ease Okung back into the game

Carp- McQ - sorry. Across the board he is the lowest rated player on the O. Carp has slow feet and gets gassed. Play to the strengths

Unger only player not rotating unless he still has a rough time then JL

Sweezy - move our rookie fill in for RT Bowie over for time with Sweezy.

RT shared with Bowie as well.

 

[Lieutenant Dan]

I know Bailey played some guard last week...did Bowie? Did he do well?

Of course, as was said, Atlanta's D-line wasn't much of a litmus test lol. But I think the confidence-building was definitely a positive.

 

[Fuzzman55]

Get the hosses out there.

LT Okung, LG Carp, C Unger, RG Sweezy, RT Giacomini

Bailey is first off the bench for everything but RT and C. The word going around is McQuistan is a better pass blocker than run blocker, but I'm watching him at guard and he's erratic just like the superior run-blockers, so that's why he's deep on my list. I really like Bowie and wouldn't mind him at RT, but I'll give Giacomini the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

 

[seedhawk]

Frankly, I could give a rat's bucket who starts. It's who plays best and finish's that counts.