Rhule see’s Brady Christensen more of a RT or OG than a LT

[PandaMan]

8 minutes ago, Luciu5 said:

It's more than an inch.  Average/ideal is 35"+.  The 33" number seen around is really the bare minimum.  It's a "you have to draw the line somewhere" type situation.  For Rhule, maybe his line is at 33 1/2" or 34".  I think there is more to playing LT than arm length, but it's obvious it's something the coaching staff cares about to some extent.

Interesting.  His athletic scores were elite, so I’m really interested in seeing if that and his elite play in college can overcome his short arms.  Like a T-Rex blocking an Allosaurus.  

[iamhubby1]

1 hour ago, MasterAwesome said:

Why would arm length be required at LT but not RT?

 

Because in football, low man wins. As longer arms keep that man at bay better than shorter arms. And LT is the QBs blind side. Most teams like their LT to be able to fend off those DEs before they get into his body. The only way to prevent low man from winning, is to keep that low man at bay.

 

Hence. LTs need to have longer arms than the RT.

 

Which is all irrelevant. Good teams attack your weaknesses. If that weakness is on the outside, that is where they attack. If it is on the inside, that is where they attack. So you need a balanced line. Which is easier said than done. At least that is how it seems for the Panthers anywho.

[iamhubby1]

18 minutes ago, Trainwreck said:

It’s going to turn out being a bad pick. All the tackles we passed up on. Don’t believe a thing Rhule has said. The dude still truly believes that he is coaching in college at Temple or Baylor, not the Carolina Panthers. Christensen went from being a LT to an elite guard and now to a RT. We could’ve had Jenkins, Eichenberg, Cosmi or Wyatt Davis a plug and play week 1 guard. 

 

Dude, it's practice. Maybe stick with Trolling, because actual football doesn't seem to be your thing.

 

And...throwing out Draft Picks we could have gotten is @stbugs deal, get your own thing.

[MasterAwesome]

52 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

Because in football, low man wins. As longer arms keep that man at bay better than shorter arms. And LT is the QBs blind side. Most teams like their LT to be able to fend off those DEs before they get into his body. The only way to prevent low man from winning, is to keep that low man at bay.

 

Hence. LTs need to have longer arms than the RT.

 

Which is all irrelevant. Good teams attack your weaknesses. If that weakness is on the outside, that is where they attack. If it is on the inside, that is where they attack. So you need a balanced line. Which is easier said than done. At least that is how it seems for the Panthers anywho.

I don’t understand which part of what you said is exclusive to LT over RT. I’m sure teams want their RT fending off DEs too lol. 

[iamhubby1]

1 minute ago, MasterAwesome said:

I don’t understand which part of what you said is exclusive to LT over RT. I’m sure teams want their RT fending off DEs too lol. 

 

LT is the QBs blind side. Hence, the need for your LT to be able to fend off those pesky DEs. Longer arms assist in that endeavor.

 

So, if you have two Tackles with equal ability. The one with the longer arms goes to LT.

 

Yes, DEs can rush from both sides. But...First, and foremost, you have to protect your QBs blind side.

[jtm]

This staff going into this season without a LT is going to be a big problem and is very very concerning. 

[KillerKat]

Don't know why the huddle is so upset. Years ago when I said Moton should be our LT, the huddle told me there was no difference between LT and RT. Just like they told me there is no difference between SLB and WLB and now trying to tell me there is no difference between FS and SS lol. I don't listen to the masses of the huddle.

[LinvilleGorge]

14 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

I am gonna be straight honest, it kind of seems like the staff/FO has no idea what they wanted from Christensen when they drafted him. That's kind of concerning for a third round draft pick.

Normally I would agree, but given our nearly complete lack of long-term solutions along the OL right now, I can understand this one. We can absolutely end up using him wherever he's best fit. If that's OT, great. If that's OG, well that's fine too.

[thefuzz]

17 hours ago, t96 said:

not really clear if you're saying whether he should be for or against a LT move?

I'd think he should be for it, as the earning potential is significantly higher for a great LT. Even if he doesn't work out at LT like he has at RT I don't think that would harm his value that much, he's already proven he can play RT at a very high level. That's not gonna change with a year of less than stellar LT tape, if that's what were to happen.

Honestly though, from the team's perspective I don't really see any other option at LT this season, except maybe planning to scheme around it, but we've seen how well that has worked with other coaches since Gross retired... Brady is theoretically better than Shula/Turner but still wouldn't be too excited about Erving or someone else at LT. It's a glaring weakness unless we try Moton there and RT would be less of a weakness with Christensen or Erving or whoever...

Risk of injury is higher, you are cemented at RT and going to be one of the highest paid T's in the league...why try to reinvent the wheel?  Play where you are dominant, just my $.02

The money difference just isn't enough, IMO.

[thefuzz]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Normally I would agree, but given our nearly complete lack of long-term solutions along the OL right now, I can understand this one. We can absolutely end up using him wherever he's best fit. If that's OT, great. If that's OG, well that's fine too.

Agree with this.  Even top end depth that can play 3/4 positions is GREAT for a 3rd rounder...compared to what we have been getting along the O Line.

End of the day, my guess is he's starting on the inside by mid season.....maybe that's closer to a hope than a guess, but here we are.

[bythenbrs]

3 hours ago, jtm said:

This staff going into this season without a LT is going to be a big problem and is very very concerning. 

Your concern is noted.  Thank you.

[Moo Daeng]

Not having a LT is the entire organization protesting their Darnold traid.

[Moo Daeng]

Interestingly, top outside pass rushers last year did their damage going up against RTs rushing from the left side of the DL.  Garrett, Watt seemed to rush predominantly from that side. Burns moves all over. 

[t96]

1 hour ago, thefuzz said:

Risk of injury is higher, you are cemented at RT and going to be one of the highest paid T's in the league...why try to reinvent the wheel?  Play where you are dominant, just my $.02

The money difference just isn't enough, IMO.

Is there some stat that backs this up? I can't see why a LT would have a higher risk of injury than RT... 

 

Those are fair points but I just don't see that much risk in trying to switch. If it does work out and he dominates at the more valuable position that helps him. If not then he can go back to RT. He's not gonna all of a sudden lose those skills there just from switching sides.