Mathis at RT

Disagree. As Mags pointed out, if the team thinks Kalil is the next best O-lineman and they think Hartwig can play guard just as well as center (both points which have evidence to support them) then they could just as easily move Kalil up and slide Hartwig over. Add in that if they did, that lineup could play well enough to stick.

If, however, they're only going to move one guy up, who is it? Battiste? Mathis? Hangartner? Montgomery? Can you argue convincingly that those options are better than Kalil? And if not, why use them?

Move Kalil up to guard you say? Okay, but has he taken any reps there to this point? I know it's "just practice " but if that's the route they want to go I hope they give him some "just practice" first.

Indeed they might, but not that we've heard to this point. Frankly, given the choice, I'd rather have a vet like Hartwig practicing two positions rather than a rookie like Kalil.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not you disagree. Anyone can say any crazy idea that pops into their head, but it doesn't have validity unless it makes sense or you can provide an example. And like I said, I can't think of any instance where a team moved its starting center to guard to cover an absence there. It's just not something you would do because of the importance of having consistency at the center position (not only because he handles the calls, but because of the snap).

Right now the team is trying to find its best combination of five, and personally I hope that will involve Kalil at center and Hartwig at right guard. But if they decide to stick with Hartwig at center, it makes no sense to then move him out of that role for the first two games of the season. No sense whatsoever.

Probably Mathis. He did start there last season, after all. In fact, as lackluster as he was, I'm a little surprised that he's not the favorite to win the position over Bridges, who is not an ideal guard by any stretch.

That makes no sense. You want your backups to be flexible enough to fill in at multiple positions. Moving your starters around should only be for extreme circumstances, like losing your starting LT for the remainder of the season.

 

Between now and the start of camp, they may decide Kalil at center and Hartwig at guard is the best combo. Some people think that anyway. We'll see.

For the moment, Bridges is still practicing as the starting right guard. If that's still the case as they get closer to the season, then unless they actually give Kalil some RG snaps at some point, I'd go with Kalil at C and Hartwig at RG as the week one and two lineup.

Will the team? Don't know, but we'll see. At the very least, they're exploring the options in just practice.

 

for what it's worth, if Kalil starts at center opening day, he'd be the first rookie starter at center for us on opening day since Paul Janus, 1998. It would be hard to top that.

Paul Janus is also the only player I can remember whose name actually contains the word "anus".

 

Whoa. That's interesting...

 

I really want Hartwig in the starting lineup. I'd actually prefer him at C, but I don't like Kalil at G. Not having seen any film of Kalil as a pro, or any of our OL in the new blocking scheme, I guess my hope for a starting 5 would be:

LT - Wharton
LG - Wahle
C - Kalil
RG - Hartwig
RT - Gross

I don't know about backups yet, but from what I saw last year, I like Montgomery at either G, Hangartner is only serviceable at C and is a weak option at best. Mathis is, from everything I've seen, utterly worthless. Quintessential "looks good getting off the bus" kind of player, but unproductive on the field. It wouldn't break my heart to lose either of those two.

 

Most of what I remember of Montgomery was him blocking, and not moving anyone, or being on the ground. I thought he carried out his assignments pretty well, and was a decent backup, but I doubted very much he was physically qualified to start in the NFL.

 

I thought he was our best in-line blocker last season, but that isn't necessarily saying much.

 

This gets me all hot and bothered. I don't necessarily have a reason for it, but it does.