OFFICIAL WEEK 11 GAMEDAY THREAD BOLTS vs DOLPHINS

[Panama]

Considering there was only one player out with an injury (Dunlap) the team decided to disrupt nearly every position on the line by choice. They could have left everyone in place and played Wiggins at LT and given him help with a TE. They then would have had 4 of the 5 in their normal starting positions.

I certainly won't argue with that logic.

[blahblahblah]

The difference in play in the respective offensive lines is explained by the difference in quality of the opposing defensive lines.

Incredibly disappointed in Liuget and Reyes this year. Don't really know why they're sliding (coaching, scheme, personal, lack of training).

[oneinchpunch]

You are wrong. See the table below:

LT	Dunlap	Fluker
LG	Rinehart	Troutman
C	Hardwick	Hardwick
RG	Clary	Rinehart
RT	Fluker	Clary

Doesn't matter if the players starting were the regular starters if they were playing out of position. They were, essentially, the backups at those positions. For example, Fluker may be a starter, but at LT he is behind Dunlap, Harris, Remmers, and probably Schilling on the depth chart. (And yes, Hardwick did play most of the game, but I only said he missed a few series. I believe he missed two, but I suppose it might only have been one. That doesn't invalidate my point about having backups at every other OL position, even if the backups are normally starters at other OL positions.)

Having backups at those positions is in the coaching staff. They only needed to have one backup play today if they wanted. Put Schilling at LT and Rinehart at LG and they would only change one position.

The coaches didn't like that option

[Den60]

No we were missing our starting LT and ouot starting RT. Remember our starting RT who you said was a OG. Well he had to play LT so to you, taht there alone is a travesty. Clary is our starting RG, not our startinf RT so we were issing our stating RT. Clary i awful ass a RT. Troutman started over Rinehart and somebody had to play in Clarys G spot which means his backup was starting.

And sorry, Denver has more talent and depth than we do. Our depth isnt good across the board.

We weren't missing them, we moved two people from positions they were starting at to other positions along the line. Personally, I'm one who never favors doing that because it impacts three positions rather than one but you can chalk the decision to do that to the coaching staff.

Denver does have some talent at LG, OLB/DE and CB that we didn't seem to value very much.

You may not realize this but there were some posters on here who were critical of our depth (especially on the defensive side of the ball) way back when. Hell, it wasn't all that long ago, 3-4 games, that posters on here were calling for an end to the debate on whether we had enough depth on defense.

[Den60]

You are wrong. See the table below:

LT	Dunlap	Fluker
LG	Rinehart	Troutman
C	Hardwick	Hardwick
RG	Clary	Rinehart
RT	Fluker	Clary

Doesn't matter if the players starting were the regular starters if they were playing out of position. They were, essentially, the backups at those positions. For example, Fluker may be a starter, but at LT he is behind Dunlap, Harris, Remmers, and probably Schilling on the depth chart. (And yes, Hardwick did play most of the game, but I only said he missed a few series. I believe he missed two, but I suppose it might only have been one. That doesn't invalidate my point about having backups at every other OL position, even if the backups are normally starters at other OL positions.)

Only Troutman is a backup (and some on here have said he has been as good as the guy he replaces). We moved starters out of position which is not what I would have done. I would have put a backup at LT and kept the rest of the starters in place knowing that I only had one hole to fill. To claim that we were forced to use three backups because the coaching staff wanted to play physical chairs rather than plug a single hole with a single backup doesn't pass the smell test. with me.

[Boltjolt]

Having backups at those positions is in the coaching staff. They only needed to have one backup play today if they wanted. Put Schilling at LT and Rinehart at LG and they would only change one position.

The coaches didn't like that option

If they had somebody to play LT instead of Fluker they should of done that instead of disrupt the entire OL.

[oneinchpunch]

If they had somebody to play LT instead of Fluker they should of done that instead of disrupt the entire OL.

Coaches decision

[Den60]

There was an article in the UT about how good the o-line coach is at having guys train at multiple positions. Perhaps the coaches wanted to showcase that.

[Fleet]

Sorry Stinky. This guarantees us a win.

Sorry guys. lol.

[6025]

Sorry guys. lol.

Well, maybe next time start the thread two days in advance, I think that was the only piece missing from the way you did it in the past.

[Fleet]

Well, maybe next time start the thread two days in advance, I think that was the only piece missing from the way you did it in the past.

Thats what i was thinking. lol

[Panama]

Only Troutman is a backup (and some on here have said he has been as good as the guy he replaces). We moved starters out of position which is not what I would have done. I would have put a backup at LT and kept the rest of the starters in place knowing that I only had one hole to fill. To claim that we were forced to use three backups because the coaching staff wanted to play physical chairs rather than plug a single hole with a single backup doesn't pass the smell test. with me.

Look, it's not what I would have done either. I'm with everyone else who things better to have 4 starters at their natural positions and help out the weak link with a TE rather than screw with every position. But that doesn't change the fact that Hardwick was the only player who started the game yesterday who wasn't backing up at the position he started.