Jon Jansen: Starter Next Year?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

The 0-line is "getting old" it isn't old yet. Over 31 is not old. that is considered still prime. I think we have a year or two with these guys, that we can draft some guys and mold them into lineman. Heyer is being one of those guys, I think when these guys are on the field together we have one of the best lines in the NFL. Proven last year when I believe their rating was 5th in the NFL.. I dont understand why people are bashing the oline. It is (was) one of our strong points of last season, and unfortunately we had injuries. No way we throw that away! Thomas is still one of the best guards in the league, Casey one probably top 10 centers, and Samuels and Jansen as bookend tackles is probably one of the top 5 or 10 tandems in the NFL.

While I would agree that a line having a couple of 30+ guys on it is not neccessarily old, I would humbly suggest that a line consisting ENTIRELY of individuals over 31 is an old line. While I absolutely agree that lineman can be effective into their mid-thirties, I also think it is a recipe for disaster to plan on getting 16 games out of all five of these guys (My prediction for next year - Out of the 80 starts possible, these five guys will make 50-55). Indiviually, I like them all (yes, even Rabach); collectively, they are a concern. I would further suggest that 32-36 is NOT considered "prime" for an O-lineman, but rather a period where a good, experienced lineman can still be "effective".

12th - Can a line lose two starters and be effective or not suffer drop off? Of course not. That has never been my point. I do think we could have been better prepared by drafting some lineman instead of Broughten and White for example.

Really, I am merely prophesizing doom and gloom for the lack of youth in the pipeline and gnashing my teeth over the staff's failure to find young talent to be developing NOW as this line is "getting old".

Given the lack of depth, the discussion as to getting rid of JJ and/or CS is, as others have suggested, insane. We have no one to step and, even if they have lost a step, the starter guys are just so much farther ahead than anything we have, or are likely to get, as back-ups.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

While I would agree that a line having a couple of 30+ guys on it is not neccessarily old, I would humbly suggest that a line consisting ENTIRELY of individuals over 31 is an old line. While I absolutely agree that lineman can be effective into their mid-thirties, I also think it is a recipe for disaster to plan on getting 16 games out of all five of these guys (My prediction for next year - Out of the 80 starts possible, these five guys will make 50-55). Indiviually, I like them all (yes, even Rabach); collectively, they are a concern. I would further suggest that 32-36 is NOT considered "prime" for an O-lineman, but rather a period where a good, experienced lineman can still be "effective".

12th - Can a line lose two starters and be effective or not suffer drop off? Of course not. That has never been my point. I do think we could have been better prepared by drafting some lineman instead of Broughten and White for example.

Really, I am merely prophesizing doom and gloom for the lack of youth in the pipeline and gnashing my teeth over the staff's failure to find young talent to be developing NOW as this line is "getting old".

Given the lack of depth, the discussion as to getting rid of JJ and/or CS is, as others have suggested, insane. We have no one to step and, even if they have lost a step, the starter guys are just so much farther ahead than anything we have, or are likely to get, as back-ups.

But how do you know when you're better prepared? I guess what I'm saying is, you don't know til you know. Just because we would have drafted some kid or had proper depth, as some would say, doesn't automatically mean that individual comes in does any better than the guys who we've already plugged in there.

Truthfully, how much better could a back-up, any back-up, play than Heyer, Wade, and Fabini? I'm thinking if they're that much better than those three, they are are most definitely starting material.

Don't get me wrong, the point and comments are well taken. The Skins should have and probably could have done better.

I think I just broke the record for using the word better in one post.