So you are saying that you disagree with my concerns? How can you? They are MY concerns, and I qualified them.
I don't understand this argument and I think it's cause we're just speaking past one another.
When I say I disagree with your concerns, that's a general statement referring to the fact that I do not think this line is in any jeopardy of not coming together sufficiently in the time they have, and I don't think they are in any danger of not performing effectively. IN response to that view of mine, I honestly have no idea what the phrases "they are MY concerns" (?) and "I qualified them" even mean.
I'm in a discussion where we are trying to weigh how effective this line will be. Trying to get a realistic picture. Some are worried that the line will not be brought together on time with fully functioning parts, and I don't share that view. Some think that individual weaknesses of this or that player will damage their overall effectiveness as a unit, and I don't share that view.
My own view is that in 2010 this bunch--including the 2 OTs, the qb, Amendola, and Jackson--pulled off running an efficient and effective ball control offense that kept Bradford upright. I see no reason why they cannot do that again, especially since they expressly say they ARE doing that again.
This version will undoubtedly have more variety built in, ie. more medium range plays, but still.
So. Yeah sure they can do that. So the line I see them pulling together is capable of that. Short drops for the most part, extra blockers, reliance on running, and so on. That's not beyond this bunch at all and that's even though Saffold is down right now, Smith is struggling, and when Wells although due back is NOT back yet.
What people should be nervous about is if they heard that (1) the 2 tackles are isolated one against good DEs in a wide 9, and struggling at it-- AND (2) they intend to have a wide open aerial attack with 4 WR sets, empty backfields, and 5 and 7 step drops.
Cause if they run a 2010 offense (that is, a passing game that is for the most part quicker drops) mixed in with a tough running game, then the situation where 2 OTs are isolated one on one, on 2 separate islands, against top DEs is just not going to occur that often.
I also don't think player by player analysis counts for much now when (1) we already know these players are at least good enough to execute that kind of offense, and (2) the Fisher/Boudreau way is to emphasize the scheme and set up players to succeed.
So unless something has changed, I don't see the problem.
Things DID change in 2011. They didn't know the offense well enough, they were young and yet were asked to step it up a notch, the gameplans did not bolster strengths but instead just asked them to do what the coordinator came up with in his head regardless of execution issues, players reported out of shape, they played from behind constantly so were set up to fail, and they got injured all over the place.
So many things DID change in 2011.
If I say "this group is going to be efficient at running what will be for the most part a tight ball control passing game" what has changed that would make that an out of date description. Things DID change in 2011. What if anything has changed now that would WORK AGAINST THAT. (Not "what has changed," that's too broad and abstract, but what has changed THAT WOULD WORK AGAINST THAT.)
lus1: 
