Yeah but Philly thought their line was good enough. If you get it wrong the season is done before it begins.
Read what I wrote again: you don't need a great line if you have a QB that can read, react and get the ball out quickly. The Eagles don't have a QB that fits that description. So yeah, a better OL would likely have helped Vick...but Vick isn't leading them to the Super Bowl even with a Hall of Fame OL.
That's four position changes and four unproven players. Yikes. Risky and expensive. Remember it could always be worse.
It's a low risk IMO. If it fails, we have a bad OL...which is what we have currently, so we haven't lost anything. What makes more sense: continuing to stick with something that isn't working, or trying something different?
You may be right in the long run, but doing it all at once makes success more unlikely.
Why would it make success more unlikely? If anything, I think it gives you a chance to get better - because in theory you are adding players that fit your scheme and dumping players that don't. You put 5 O-lineman together from day one and let them work together throughout mini-camps, training camp and pre-season. That's plenty of time for a line to gel. Besides, what we did this year wasn't much different when you consider that our OL had to learn an entirely new offense and blocking scheme, and Martin had to learn a new position.