Let's review:
* A.T. Hall is expected to have a significantly reduced role, if at all, given the nature of his preseason injury. Devery Hamilton gets the start for the second straight week at right tackle
* Casey Tucker once again expected to back up Brandon Fanaika at right guard. What that means in terms of actual playing time, however, is unclear since rumors continue to circulate that he'll be sitting out the season
* Dave Bright, Jesse Burkett, and Nate Herbig are locked in at left tackle, left guard, and center and (barring injury) that doesn't look to change anytime soon
Add that all up and what you're left with is the harsh reality that we're down to two returning starters from last season against USC. Returning starter tends to be a bit of an ambiguous term that is generally classified as the player who received the majority of starts from the season before. Since we played in 13 games last season, that would require seven starts minimum to qualify someone as a returning starter. In the case of the O-line, Burkett (13 starts), Hall (13 starts), Caspers (11 starts), Bright (10 starts), and Tucker (7 starts) were our official starters from 2016. Herbig (6 starts) and Fanaika (5 starts) fell just short of that distinction.
While this may be construed as nitpicking, you can't completely dismiss the fact that we're losing a total of 34 combined career starts in the absence of Tucker and Hall. And even though it's impossible to quantify just how significant of a setback that really is, it's a development that nonetheless flips our experience advantage in the trenches in favor of USC. Coming into the season, USC's O-line was viewed as a potential weakness, with only two returning starters (although technically three with the return of Toa Lobendahn, who missed all of 2016 due to injury). Stanford, meanwhile, was expected to return four, assuming everyone reprised their starting roles from the year before. Removing Hall and Tucker's starts from the equation, however, and USC now carries almost double the amount of experience we do (72 starts vs. 38 starts).
For a matchup that's been over-analyzed from every possible angle this past week, it's surprising to see such a significant storyline go unnoticed until now. Again, this may mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things if the Tunnel Workers Union takes care of business tomorrow. But considering we've only played Rice so far, our new-look O-line is completely untested against Power Five competition. And even against Rice, we were far from perfect; Hamilton had some noticeable struggles in pass protection and Fanaika missed a number of key blocks. I know many here expect our O-line to be a relative strength this season, given our experience and how good we looked in Australia. But what if we're sorely underestimating just how important the loss of all that starting experience really is and we struggle badly against USC like we did against Washington? Can't imagine we'll have any shot against the Trojans if we look even remotely bad as we did against the Huskies last season. And while I'm not trying to incite any sort of overreaction here, it's definitely something to consider.
* A.T. Hall is expected to have a significantly reduced role, if at all, given the nature of his preseason injury. Devery Hamilton gets the start for the second straight week at right tackle
* Casey Tucker once again expected to back up Brandon Fanaika at right guard. What that means in terms of actual playing time, however, is unclear since rumors continue to circulate that he'll be sitting out the season
* Dave Bright, Jesse Burkett, and Nate Herbig are locked in at left tackle, left guard, and center and (barring injury) that doesn't look to change anytime soon
Add that all up and what you're left with is the harsh reality that we're down to two returning starters from last season against USC. Returning starter tends to be a bit of an ambiguous term that is generally classified as the player who received the majority of starts from the season before. Since we played in 13 games last season, that would require seven starts minimum to qualify someone as a returning starter. In the case of the O-line, Burkett (13 starts), Hall (13 starts), Caspers (11 starts), Bright (10 starts), and Tucker (7 starts) were our official starters from 2016. Herbig (6 starts) and Fanaika (5 starts) fell just short of that distinction.
While this may be construed as nitpicking, you can't completely dismiss the fact that we're losing a total of 34 combined career starts in the absence of Tucker and Hall. And even though it's impossible to quantify just how significant of a setback that really is, it's a development that nonetheless flips our experience advantage in the trenches in favor of USC. Coming into the season, USC's O-line was viewed as a potential weakness, with only two returning starters (although technically three with the return of Toa Lobendahn, who missed all of 2016 due to injury). Stanford, meanwhile, was expected to return four, assuming everyone reprised their starting roles from the year before. Removing Hall and Tucker's starts from the equation, however, and USC now carries almost double the amount of experience we do (72 starts vs. 38 starts).
For a matchup that's been over-analyzed from every possible angle this past week, it's surprising to see such a significant storyline go unnoticed until now. Again, this may mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things if the Tunnel Workers Union takes care of business tomorrow. But considering we've only played Rice so far, our new-look O-line is completely untested against Power Five competition. And even against Rice, we were far from perfect; Hamilton had some noticeable struggles in pass protection and Fanaika missed a number of key blocks. I know many here expect our O-line to be a relative strength this season, given our experience and how good we looked in Australia. But what if we're sorely underestimating just how important the loss of all that starting experience really is and we struggle badly against USC like we did against Washington? Can't imagine we'll have any shot against the Trojans if we look even remotely bad as we did against the Huskies last season. And while I'm not trying to incite any sort of overreaction here, it's definitely something to consider.
Last edited:
