There's nothing new about people saying that. That's an old mantra.
And, if you look at teams around the league, it's not true.
There's only so many human beings in existence at any given time who can play left tackle in the NFL. Yet any college tackle capable of playing in the pros can play RIGHT tackle. Right tackles are easier to find, and cheaper (last I looked, on average, right tackle is the 2nd lowest paid non-special teams position in the NFL, just ahead of fullback).
A lot of if not most NFL right tackles could not play left tackle. I don;t think Hav, for example, could play left tackle in the NFL. In fact no one would think hey if the ROT has to be like a left OT, then switch Whitworth and Hav. Anyone think that's a great idea?
So I keep hearing, virtually every year for years now, that there's no longer a difference between LOT and ROT. And, if you look at the league, yes there is. Sure there is. With an exception here or there (like Lane Johnson), ROTs are guys who couldn't play LOT well enough to be franchise starters. I don't see that ending. It's hard enough to find 32 starting caliber LOTs to stock the league. There's just not going to be 64 guys like that in the league.
.,...
