so much for depth at right tackle.

**chief31** · 06-16-2006, 09:18 AM

O.k. I love what Kyle Turley brings to our O-line. But that doesn't mean that I want Welbourn to leave. Big shocker for me. John Welbourn had become a pleasant surprise at right tackle, in Taits absense, and has had experience starting at left guard. Even with Turley in his place, I think we took a hit to our depth because of the question marks around Turleys health and his lack of experience at other positions on the line.(to my knowledge, tackle is the only position he has been a starter at)

Well, good luck to John in his next career.I'll miss him.(not the "W" crew anymore)

**Chiefster** · 06-17-2006, 02:37 AM

chief31 wrote:
O.k. I love what Kyle Turley brings to our O-line. But that doesn't mean that I want Welbourn to leave. Big shocker for me. John Welbourn had become a pleasant surprise at right tackle, in Taits absense, and has had experience starting at left guard. Even with Turley in his place, I think we took a hit to our depth because of the question marks around Turleys health and his lack of experience at other positions on the line.(to my knowledge, tackle is the only position he has been a starter at)

Well, good luck to John in his next career.I'll miss him.(not the "W" crew anymore)

Agreed; I can only view this as a big gamble; letting a proven starter go for a guy who has to be, again, proven. IMO.

**Guru** · 06-17-2006, 02:55 AM

Chiefster wrote:
Agreed; I can only view this as a big gamble; letting a proven starter go for a guy who has to be, again, proven. IMO.

It wasn't letting a proven starter go. He left. There is a difference. Agreed on the fact we have to fill a need now though.

**Chiefster** · 06-17-2006, 03:03 AM

Guru wrote:

Chiefster wrote:
Agreed; I can only view this as a big gamble; letting a proven starter go for a guy who has to be, again, proven. IMO.

It wasn't letting a proven starter go. He left. There is a difference. Agreed on the fact we have to fill a need now though.

Thanks for the clearification; my misunderstanding. :-D

Agreed; the depth we thought we were getting with Turley is tempered by the gaping hole left behind by Welbourn.

**Guru** · 06-17-2006, 03:36 AM

Chiefster wrote:

Thanks for the clearification; my misunderstanding. :-D

Agreed; the depth we thought we were getting with Turley is tempered by the gaping hole left behind by Welbourn.

You're welcome. Somebody has to keep you in line.

**Chiefster** · 06-17-2006, 03:39 AM

Guru wrote:

Chiefster wrote:

Thanks for the clearification; my misunderstanding. :-D

Agreed; the depth we thought we were getting with Turley is tempered by the gaping hole left behind by Welbourn.

You're welcome. Somebody has to keep you in line.

...And You've never failed. :-D

Hey; I broke the 500 mark without even realizing it!