The revolving door at right tackle

[Fencer]

Under BB, there's been a revolving door at right tackle. Some might say that's true in two different ways.

It would take a lot of time to research this properly, but my list of opening day RT starters includes:

• Adrian Klemm?
• Kenyatta Jones
• GRR Randall
• Ryan O'Callaghan
• Nick Kaczur
• Sebastian Vollmer
• Nate Solder
• Marcus Cannon (presumptive)

Edit: As per the comments below, also Tom Ashworth.

That's a lot, and I may well be forgetting somebody or otherwise getting details wrong. I have in the past compared the Patriots' right OT position to "#2" on The Prisoner.

I suspect the main reason is a combination of filling the position from the middle of the draft, plus bad injury luck when BB does try to fill it high.

Anyhow -- if you don't like the Patriots' right tackle, just wait a little while.

 

[Rob0729]

You forgot Tom Ashworth.

I don't know why people would complain about the Pats filling in the RT spot because the Pats have had a different starting RT in all five Super Bowls of the Belichick era. That kinda says that the Pats can almost plug anyone in and get there. But Vollmer is pretty good when healthy.

 

[Ring 6]

Under BB, there's been a revolving door at right tackle. Some might say that's true in two different ways.

It would take a lot of time to research this properly, but my list of opening day RT starters includes:

• Adrian Klemm?
• Kenyatta Jones
• GRR Randall
• Ryan O'Callaghan
• Nick Kaczur
• Sebastian Vollmer
• Nate Solder
• Marcus Cannon (presumptive)

That's a lot, and I may well be forgetting somebody or otherwise getting details wrong. I have in the past compared the Patriots' right OT position to "#2" on The Prisoner.

I suspect the main reason is a combination of filling the position from the middle of the draft, plus bad injury luck when BB does try to fill it high.

Anyhow -- if you don't like the Patriots' right tackle, just wait a little while.

You left out Tom Ashworth.

 

[Deus Irae]

Solder and Cannon have been injury replacements, not expected starters. Beyond that, it's not really surprising to see that there's been a fair number of RTs, once you look at the names on the list.

 

[signbabybrady]

I think this is an indication that RT is the least important on the line.

 

[patchick]

Solder and Cannon have been injury replacements, not expected starters.

As were O'Callaghan and Klemm, and short-term at that. So I think we're actually talking about these primary starters:


1 season of G. Randall
1 season of K. Jones
3 seasons of T. Ashworth (signed away as a FA)
5 seasons of N. Kaczur (injured, out of league)
3 seasons of S. Vollmer

Looks pretty reasonable, actually.

 

[Fencer]

You forgot Tom Ashworth.

I don't know why people would complain about the Pats filling in the RT spot because the Pats have had a different starting RT in all five Super Bowls of the Belichick era.

And in 2 of the 5 it is generally agreed that they lost due to the OL getting beaten.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

And in 2 of the 5 it is generally agreed that they lost due to the OL getting beaten.

The only SB where RT was a big factor was vs the Packiz.

Think Matt "Fast Lane" vs Reggie White. Combine that with The Statue at QB and you get EZ pass INTs galore.

Squids should never be RTs.

 

[Rob0729]

And in 2 of the 5 it is generally agreed that they lost due to the OL getting beaten.

First, I don't think anyone general agree that the Pats lost either Super Bowl because of the o-line. There wasn't any one area in either game where the blame lies. There were a dozen major reasons in both games that played a factor in the loss. The o-line had nothing to do with Gronk barely being able to walk or Samuels dropping an easy INT or any one of several dozen plays that were poorly executed in the last two Super Bowls.

Also, many of the problems of the o-line had to do more with injuries to guards than who was manning the right tackle position (although it played a part). In the first Giants' Super Bowl, the loss of Kazcur really hurt and it was Justin Tuck coming up the middle where the Pats were really vulnerable. In the last Super Bowl, Mankins playing with a torn ACL, became a big weakness in that game.

Either way, if the Pats execute any one or two of a half dozen plays in both games that had nothing to do with the o-line and the Pats would have probably won either of those two Super Bowls they lost. To say the o-line is the reason the Pats lost the last two Super Bowls is not dealing with the reality of situation. It played a part, but there are other things just as big or bigger.

 

[jmt57]

Without seeing the data for the number of starting tackles on the 31 other teams during the same time frame I don't know if the Pats have had a lot of RTs, the average number of RTs or what. At face value I do agree that it seems like a lot but without any benchmark to compare it to we really don't know for sure. It's eerily similar to the 'awful drafting' arguments where it is extremely rare for anyone to come up with what percentage is good, bad or average.

On top of that even if the team has gone through a lot of RTs in comparison to other teams, I'm sure there are other positions in which the opposite is true. ... though I'm sure somebody will look at the list and proclaim that Belichick doesn't know how to draft RTs and shouldn't waste a draft pick on one, etc.

 

[supafly]

First, I don't think anyone general agree that the Pats lost either Super Bowl because of the o-line. There wasn't any one area in either game where the blame lies. There were a dozen major reasons in both games that played a factor in the loss. The o-line had nothing to do with Gronk barely being able to walk or Samuels dropping an easy INT or any one of several dozen plays that were poorly executed in the last two Super Bowls.

Also, many of the problems of the o-line had to do more with injuries to guards than who was manning the right tackle position (although it played a part). In the first Giants' Super Bowl, the loss of Kazcur really hurt and it was Justin Tuck coming up the middle where the Pats were really vulnerable. In the last Super Bowl, Mankins playing with a torn ACL, became a big weakness in that game.

Either way, if the Pats execute any one or two of a half dozen plays in both games that had nothing to do with the o-line and the Pats would have probably won either of those two Super Bowls they lost. To say the o-line is the reason the Pats lost the last two Super Bowls is not dealing with the reality of situation. It played a part, but there are other things just as big or bigger.

I think that you have many good thoughts on the reasons for the o-line's failure in the past 2 SB's, but I can certainly see Fencer's point too.

It's going to be one of the arguable points like "who was more to blame--offense vs defense?" In other words, there are likely reasonable arguments to both sides of the debate.

I would certainly agree that the offensive line had a decent part in the losses, but to what extent is the big question? You are definitely right in pointing out the fact that there were many variables that went into the losses though.