Football Football experts: Making the switch from left to right tackle - Page 2

**RealSNR** · 03-07-2013, 05:43 PM

People are throwing this idea around a lot. Donald Stephenson and Jeff Allen get a shot at starting RT. Branden Albert should move from left to right. Jake Long should sign as a RT. Meanwhile, the Packers are openly entertaining the idea of moving Bryan Bulaga to from RT to LT, figuring that their best lineman on the roster needs to play the most important position.

My only experience with watching these side switches occurred in 2002 where John Tait moved over to RT to make room for Willie Roaf. Oh, and also when Damien McIntosh moved from LT to RT to make way for Branden Albert, but nobody really gives a shit about that.

However, I do remember the John Tait thing being considered a big deal. Tait did offseason interviews at OTAs and at training camp where he explained the sheer amount of work that is involved in making the switch. It's a muscle memory thing. You're taking everything you learned how to do with your right and left hands and feet and flip-flopping it all. Not only do your responsibilities in terms of the playbook change, but the entire TECHNIQUE is different, and requires careful, repetitive drills to be hammered out so the switch goes smoothly.

So my question is am I accurate with that description of making the switch? Or am I (and Tait) blowing shit out of proportion? Because to me, it seems like Albert is pretty resistant to making that change not only for the money and for his personal pride as a premier LT in the league, but also because he probably doesn't feel like re-learning how to play the tackle position in one offseason, where he would then potentially have to leave the team if the Chiefs want to go in a different direction. Why put in the work if the results aren't worth it, after all?

Sanka · 03-07-2013, 06:14 PM

Why **** with something that isnt broken? Keep Albert at LT.

-King- · 03-07-2013, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WV

You have a point to a certain extent. Yes Albert will make a crap ton playing under the Tag, but if he switches to RT he will be costing himself money long term. I think people are glossing over this fact far too much. It's the same fight T. Suggs had when they tried to tag him as a DE instead of an OLB.
There isn't a person on this forum that would be willing to take what amounts to a demotion without bitching about it.

Exactly.

Ace Gunner · 03-07-2013, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Mr. Capone:

What if your employer asked you to move to a new position, where you will be paid the same, but it will severely hinder your advancement in the future, and thus, your future earnings?

In Albert's case, if he hits FA, he may be paid RT money instead of LT money, or he'll have to hope a team will pay him LT money and go from LT-->RT-->LT. That's not fair to the player.

wtf is wrong with you. if a player is good at LT and is moved to RT due to circumstance/needs and then hits the FA, other teams are going to know his history. those that aren't picked up and moved to LT again aren't good. JFC it's pro sports not high school.

Ace Gunner · 03-07-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Great minds.

great piles of shit.

candyman · 03-07-2013, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr_capone

Mr. Stephenson:

Branden Albert is being paid top 5 LT money. If Coach Reid tell his to shag punts or block on ST... then he should be grateful for the opportunity to be paid that much money to do so. Chiefs fans have a very difficult time respecting ANY player who takes the stance of himself above the team. If moving to RT or LG improves the team... I expect him to do so while being paid more per game than the majority of us get paid per year to go to work every single day.

In the end. Branden Albert needs to cash his check and

. Whining on Twitter is something I would expect from a drama queen like TO. Not a professional like B. Albert.

Agreed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Mr. Capone:

What if your employer asked you to move to a new position, where you will be paid the same, but it will severely hinder your advancement in the future, and thus, your future earnings?

In Albert's case, if he hits FA, he may be paid RT money instead of LT money, or he'll have to hope a team will pay him LT money and go from LT-->RT-->LT. That's not fair to the player.

Fair point. I can see both sides.

Cephalic Trauma · 03-07-2013, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzz_TinBalls

wtf is wrong with you. if a player is good at LT and is moved to RT due to circumstance/needs and then hits the FA, other teams are going to know his history. those that aren't picked up and moved to LT again aren't good. JFC it's pro sports not high school.

Coming from the guy who just said, "As a former wideout..."

candyman · 03-07-2013, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Coming from the guy who just said, "As a former wideout..."

Playing different sides of the field as a wideout is similar to playing opposite sides of the line. Different footwork, technique, etc. Why is that hard to understand?

Cephalic Trauma · 03-07-2013, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzz_TinBalls

wtf is wrong with you. if a player is good at LT and is moved to RT due to circumstance/needs and then hits the FA, other teams are going to know his history. those that aren't picked up and moved to LT again aren't good. JFC it's pro sports not high school.

This also goes completely against your first post (which I agree with, but qualifying it with "As a former wideout..." is comical at best).

He has to learn what is essentially an entirely new position at a high level, and be effective. You are underestimating the difficulty of switching between the two sides. It's bad for both parties (player and team).

Cephalic Trauma · 03-07-2013, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyman

Playing different sides of the field as a wideout is similar to playing opposite sides of the line. Different footwork, technique, etc. Why is that hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand, it's just a poor way of qualifying his post.

It's coming from someone who likely didn't play at this level. Further, it is in no way comparable to LT to RT or vice versa. It may be challenging, but not to the same degree.

KCDC · 03-07-2013, 06:32 PM

Maybe we should ask Alex Smith to play RT.

penbrook · 03-07-2013, 06:32 PM

Ian Rappoport just said that the Chiefs view Albert as their long term answer at LT and Albert will not play RT.

Sorter · 03-07-2013, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penbook

Ian Rappoport just said that the Chiefs view Albert as their long term answer at LT and Albert will not play RT.

****

WV · 03-07-2013, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penbook

Ian Rappoport just said that the Chiefs view Albert as their long term answer at LT and Albert will not play RT.

I was going to post the same thing, I just heard it on NFL Radio.

**Tribal Warfare** · 03-07-2013, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sorter

****

Isn't that a good thing?

candyman · 03-07-2013, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sorter

****

Why? Hopefully this means we dont have to worry about taking a Tackle. I seriously doubt they would draft Fisher or Joker and make them play RT.

03-07-2013, 05:43 PM
RealSNR Special Teams ACE!!! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the hell is SNR Casino cash: $-1504792	Football experts: Making the switch from left to right tackle People are throwing this idea around a lot. Donald Stephenson and Jeff Allen get a shot at starting RT. Branden Albert should move from left to right. Jake Long should sign as a RT. Meanwhile, the Packers are openly entertaining the idea of moving Bryan Bulaga to from RT to LT, figuring that their best lineman on the roster needs to play the most important position. My only experience with watching these side switches occurred in 2002 where John Tait moved over to RT to make room for Willie Roaf. Oh, and also when Damien McIntosh moved from LT to RT to make way for Branden Albert, but nobody really gives a shit about that. However, I do remember the John Tait thing being considered a big deal. Tait did offseason interviews at OTAs and at training camp where he explained the sheer amount of work that is involved in making the switch. It's a muscle memory thing. You're taking everything you learned how to do with your right and left hands and feet and flip-flopping it all. Not only do your responsibilities in terms of the playbook change, but the entire TECHNIQUE is different, and requires careful, repetitive drills to be hammered out so the switch goes smoothly. So my question is am I accurate with that description of making the switch? Or am I (and Tait) blowing shit out of proportion? Because to me, it seems like Albert is pretty resistant to making that change not only for the money and for his personal pride as a premier LT in the league, but also because he probably doesn't feel like re-learning how to play the tackle position in one offseason, where he would then potentially have to leave the team if the Chiefs want to go in a different direction. Why put in the work if the results aren't worth it, after all?
Posts: 93,419

03-07-2013, 06:14 PM	#16
Sanka Veteran Join Date: May 2007 Casino cash: $-1523023	Why **** with something that isnt broken? Keep Albert at LT.
Posts: 1,210

03-07-2013, 06:32 PM	#25
KCDC Starter Join Date: Mar 2009 Casino cash: $9616110	Maybe we should ask Alex Smith to play RT.
Posts: 886

03-07-2013, 06:32 PM	#26
penbrook LEGEND! Join Date: Feb 2013 Casino cash: $10033840	Ian Rappoport just said that the Chiefs view Albert as their long term answer at LT and Albert will not play RT.
Posts: 16,409