We've got big trouble on the OL.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And, again, I agree as to the term conclusive. What we can say, and which you seem to be fighting tooth and nail not to say, is "They looked good".

Woah there, no need to be a mind reader or make false assumptions.
Lets be very clear this isn't a discussion about whether the OL looked good.
I responded directly to this statement that you made:

Originally Posted by your statement

the FO's decision to prioritize Garcon over a RT looked pretty rock solid.

In fact if you said that some OL looked good I might have actually agree with you. (Gettis (who actually had a pancake), Compton).
But it takes a certain amount of dishonestly/homerism for your net take away about the OL and specifically the RT positions level of play was good enough to justify anything.
Espcially considering the 1st unit struggled with their run blocking assignment and Polumbus in particular had a number of push-backs and whiffs.

Level of opposition is not a justification for grading poor play on a curve.


You can't agree with this:

I think an objective look tells us we shouldn't/can't glean anything conclusive from 1 preseason game.

And say this at the same time:

Originally Posted by you

both the player's and the FO should get a preliminary passing grade based on this 1st outing

Without coming across as hypocritical.

Its like saying: we can't take anything conclusive away from the 1st preseason game except that the FO decision to sign Garcon justifies them not addressing the RT.