Our past FOs (and this one in the case of Bushrod) have fallen into the trap of drafting tackles to play guard. They did it because the tackles have the footwork and mobility to play zone and the flexibility to move around the line on gameday (because you dress so few linemen that's a big plus). We built lines ostensibly to move the pocket, to pull and then get to the second level and to handle the smaller shifter explosive D linemen.
We ignored drafting college guards under the misapprehension that they wouldn't fit a zone scheme, that they would lack flexibility and that showing aggression and a nasty streak was surely a mask for athletic limitations.
So we went through a farce of constantly shifting personnel, almost all of them tackles by trade (many if them not very good to start with) who were asked to move from tackle to guard and back, left to right and back - why? Because they didn't fit well anywhere. None had the necessary anchor, quick hands and aggressive mentality for the interior.
The farce hasn't quite ended yet, in the sense that we still played a LT at LG last year, a LT at RG. Plus, with all the converted tackle converts on the roster, we had no proper center cover until recently (and you could easily argue we still dont).
To improve, first we need players who can play on the interior in the club and clear out the swing tackle and failure players. That's partially complete. Then we need a run of TC and games with a consistent line. We need guards (probably at least on more unless Asiata can step up) who can move the pile when needed - zone is fine but on 4th and inches or goalline it's about power and desire more often than not. And we need a competent center backup who can ID the offence, snap the ball and anchor the middle.
I'd say we're 75% there on all of those, barring the run of consistency. But 75% has as much chance of becoming 50% as 100%., because we lack a culture of dominance and success in the line.