I apologize for any offense. But, yes I did slip that comment in at the end, as an after thought.
There was one poster who indicated that all the positions were we equal, and that the idea that LT's were more valuable went out in the 80's. To my knowledge have never made any such representation.
===========
Let's separate two issues.
===========
GM's throughout the league value LT's move than they value RG's. I think this is shown by what OL's are paid. And yes, in the past few years, the other OL positions have been valued more than in past times. It no longer surprising to see an OL from any position get a $10M per year payday. So, yes, the gap is decreasing, especially for RT's who are more and more valuable.
=========
Now let's discuss game situations. Yes, there are many situations where facing a particular team makes a RT more valuable than our LT, or even a C most valuable.
=========
Now, let us proceed to the "real' issue, where BB and Dante have been very, very clear over the past 20 years. They agree with you, and I do also. The very, very strong preference is to have the next man up be a player who plays the position. So, yes, the backup LT (like Waddle) comes in when the LT is injured or out. The second, related issue is that Bill and Dante want our best set of OL's on the field.
So. let me give a hypothetical. Let us say that Bodine worked out to be good enough to start at center and Wynn as going to be out for a few weeks. Would we at least consider a line of Thuney, Karras, Bodine, Mason, Cannon? I think that we would unless we could secure a solid backup LT.
===========
OUR CURRENT SITUATION
We are reasonably well set except that we don't have a quality LT. Curiously, this was the point of the thread in the first place. I am personally NOT equipped to be able to evaluate the OT play by the newbies. I'm pretty sure that Thuney could keep Brady alive. I'm not at all sure of the rest.
So, the BOTTOM LINE is that I would be thrilled if one our new players is good enough to take over at LT. If not, my very strong suspicion is that it is easier to secure a LG than a LT.
What a petty little thing to sneak in at the end there after making a big deal about how none of us, yourself included, are truly informed. I'm certainly one of the posters you're referring to, and this is an inaccurate reduction of my position. Contracts for LTs do in fact get a little positional bonus compared to the rest of the line, but the fact that some of the highest paid offensive linemen in football don't play left tackle means the value gap isn't that big.
Matchups, positional fit/comfort, and talent are much more important than who lines up on the left or the right. I was arguing that it would be dumb to move 2 or 3 guys around on our line just to have Thuney or Cannon or someone else at LT when you could just plug the next best guy into his natural position and keep things as stable as possible.