Should Costanzo move to guard?

[Tmoney]

41 minutes ago, akcolt said:

C'mon Anthony Castonzo is a LT. He has been a LT since his sophomore season at BC. He's not moving to RT or G.

 

We would cut AC before he switched positions. LT's are not easy to find and there aren't 30 in the league better than AC. It's that simple. 

 

He is an average LT that's ready to go every Sunday. That's not as easy to find as you think. 

 

It doesn't matter what he's been, what he IS is a LT thats been declining steadily. What he IS is a LT whose best attributes are that of a RT or G. Why cut him and pay him half his salary? There aren't 30 LTs better in the league, but there's 30 better OLs then the Colts. Optimize the talent you have with new talent you bring in. If its so simple why is our Franchise QB not playing rn? I'm not satisfied with an average LT, might not be easy to find but who has more excuses to do w.e it takes to find one then us?? Nobody. Thanks for the input and bleed blue

[Stephen]

We need help on the oline pass rush and middle line backer. The question is can any of this be addressed in free agency.

[dgambill]

32 minutes ago, Tmoney said:

Fair enough, my thinking is more towards if we decide to add a stud T or Ts through the draft kick him in. He has pretty good feet for a T, but he'd have excellent length and feet for a G. I'm honestly tired of having a "serviceable" or "good enough" OL, which its really not. Clearly its not working, yes our QBs hold the ball so why not acomodate them instead of forcing them to change their style. KCs OL is ehhh, but they drafted their LT #1 overall and paid Schwartz hella money. We can't sit back watching Luck get killed and say, well he holds the ball too long, were decent enough up front. Let's at least do something. Thanks for the feedback my man

Well if you want to have a great passing game you have to get the ball out quickly. KC has given up the second most sacks in the league....now granted they have the best running attack in the league so there are trade offs. We have given up quite a few sacks but can't run the ball effectively...so yes the line play needs to improve...but across the league OL play is in a sad shape in my opinion. Even Tom Brady has been sacked 13 times..only one less than our qbs and Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay has been sacked more than us. You don't think two teams whose qbs are the most valuable in the league don't want to protect them. I would love to find these great lineman but they are few and far between. The way you combat it isn't always by spending more dollars or higher draft picks...sometimes you have to change your offense around what you do well and what you don't. If that means shorter throws, quicker routes, more stacked wrs I'm not a coach but you got to get more creative to get the ball out faster. I'm all for investing in our qb but at some point the offense coordinator, coach, and yes the qb have to adjust with what we have and design an offense that works within the confines of our OL skillset. I don't think they are so awful that they are the worst or even close to the worst in the league. What happens is we get in behind the sticks in down and distance making our routes and play calls predictable as we too often see third and long. Combine that with the fact that teams are playing the run and don't respect our passing game (even with Brisset its obvious) they stack the line of scrimmage and play press coverage and your going to get an overwhelmed line. Luck can help with that...they will respect his ability to beat them deep and hurt them in the passing game. I also think Kelly will help sure up the middle of the line and who knows maybe slow down some blitzes and give help to our tackles as he can cover some one on ones. Again I'm going to just ask to see how it comes around with the additions of Luck and Kelly...but I do acknowledge your desire to improve the OL...it isn't a crazy one...it's very logical...but I think sadly its not something that can be done easily.

[dgambill]

19 minutes ago, Stephen said:

We need help on the oline pass rush and middle line backer. The question is can any of this be addressed in free agency.

Yep...you could argue WR and RB will be a need too...we lose Gore and possibly Moncrief if he isn't re-signed. I know we felt Dorsett wasn't improving and maybe he wouldn't have but there is no doubt we really could use another dependable playmaker in the passing game. Moncrief might get to that...but he hasn't yet. Obviously we drafted Mack but I don't think he is that every down back...and Gore is probably gone after his contract runs out too....so as many problems we had last year to fix...we've found some more this year. I will say the DL and Secondary look promising...and we have a nice backup qb....so this team has made some improvements...we just have a long way to go.

[Stephen]

41 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Yep...you could argue WR and RB will be a need too...we lose Gore and possibly Moncrief if he isn't re-signed. I know we felt Dorsett wasn't improving and maybe he wouldn't have but there is no doubt we really could use another dependable playmaker in the passing game. Moncrief might get to that...but he hasn't yet. Obviously we drafted Mack but I don't think he is that every down back...and Gore is probably gone after his contract runs out too....so as many problems we had last year to fix...we've found some more this year. I will say the DL and Secondary look promising...and we have a nice backup qb....so this team has made some improvements...we just have a long way to go.

Thats the thing. Say when we pick in the 1st round an elite rb is there. The pass rusher mlb and olineman are average. Do you reach for the position of need or draft the great player. Or do you pass on elite talent like the browns and trade back for addition picks. Browns passed on hooker for peppers and a te

[dgambill]

53 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Thats the thing. Say when we pick in the 1st round an elite rb is there. The pass rusher mlb and olineman are average. Do you reach for the position of need or draft the great player. Or do you pass on elite talent like the browns and trade back for addition picks. Browns passed on hooker for peppers and a te

Depends on what kind of haul you can get by trading back and if you can still get players you value when you do. Personally I draft someone I believe to be a superstar talent when I can...no matter the position (obviously exception would be qb since we have one). When you have identified a special special talent you just take them...and figure out how to make it work after the fact. Most positions on the team are either multiple or players can slide over. Say you have an elite edge rusher and you have a great one sitting there...well you can always use two....same for corner or LB...or tackle. Fact is I would rather try to figure out how deal with having too many great players then constantly trying to upgrade average players. Personally...I draft special talent early in the draft...no matter the position (within reason) and build my team around them...maybe that means making a trade or then supplementing need players through free agency but when I have a chance at a great talent, I would take it. Towards the middle and back end of the draft then I try to build my roster and address need areas but still look at bpa...at a position of need. So...if I have the chance to draft say Barkley next year and he is well ahead of the next player on my board even if he doesn't address the biggest need on the team I draft him. I think you build your team around special players and you only get so many chances to find super stars...and difference makers. Whether that's defense or offense...same could be said for a corner or another position..you get the kid..then you figure out how to get him on the field and you make other moves to accomadate them. I think we kinda saw that with Hooker this last year. I don't think safety (while a need sure) was the biggest hole we wanted to fill but when you have a special player there and a difference maker you take them...and you fill your other needs later or work around it. I think we did that and I think that's how you end up with a team that can ultimately be successful. You need those star type players and surround them with good players....you can find good...its super hard to find great. Take the great when you can! Obviously its nice when great player is the position of biggest need...but I wouldn't pass up on great just because I got a bigger need. That's how you end up with mediocre team. You get what you draft.

[lollygagger8]

If Castanzo moves, it should be to RT, not guard. 

 

I think Castanzo plays alot better with Mewhort next to him. Maybe RG is what we need the more and move Mewhort back to LG. 

[Valpo2004]

AC isn't a bad Left Tackle, he's just decent.  

 

Ideally speaking I would want to draft a tackle highly, start him immediately at right tackle to give him some experience and then the year after that if he's doing well enough switch AC to RT.  

 

Ultimately though we have so many needs on this team it's insane people are so upset about AC.  He's decent but not great.  Lots of other areas that need to be improved on more.  

[superrep1967]

On 10/3/2017 at 8:32 AM, ColtsBlitz said:

Honestly, I wouldn't be mad if we spent one of our top picks next year on an offensive lineman. We need a inside linebacker for sure on the more athletic side of things, but this oline still has struggles despite being much better.  Let's not forget the Rams and Seahawks are the best defenses in the business in terms of pass rush and scoring. Kelly and Luck will make a surprising difference, especially if Andrew can cut on his silly picks. 

He will if he has more protection.

[superrep1967]

44 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Depends on what kind of haul you can get by trading back and if you can still get players you value when you do. Personally I draft someone I believe to be a superstar talent when I can...no matter the position (obviously exception would be qb since we have one). When you have identified a special special talent you just take them...and figure out how to make it work after the fact. Most positions on the team are either multiple or players can slide over. Say you have an elite edge rusher and you have a great one sitting there...well you can always use two....same for corner or LB...or tackle. Fact is I would rather try to figure out how deal with having too many great players then constantly trying to upgrade average players. Personally...I draft special talent early in the draft...no matter the position (within reason) and build my team around them...maybe that means making a trade or then supplementing need players through free agency but when I have a chance at a great talent, I would take it. Towards the middle and back end of the draft then I try to build my roster and address need areas but still look at bpa...at a position of need. So...if I have the chance to draft say Barkley next year and he is well ahead of the next player on my board even if he doesn't address the biggest need on the team I draft him. I think you build your team around special players and you only get so many chances to find super stars...and difference makers. Whether that's defense or offense...same could be said for a corner or another position..you get the kid..then you figure out how to get him on the field and you make other moves to accomadate them. I think we kinda saw that with Hooker this last year. I don't think safety (while a need sure) was the biggest hole we wanted to fill but when you have a special player there and a difference maker you take them...and you fill your other needs later or work around it. I think we did that and I think that's how you end up with a team that can ultimately be successful. You need those star type players and surround them with good players....you can find good...its super hard to find great. Take the great when you can! Obviously its nice when great player is the position of biggest need...but I wouldn't pass up on great just because I got a bigger need. That's how you end up with mediocre team. You get what you draft.

I would not if there is a great LT sitting there and you need one take him even if there's more talent in other positions. . I know all the GM's say that they just draft for talent is a bunch of malarkey. They just say that in case the fans do not like there pick. However, Grigson did draft for talent with Dorsett, and we all know how that turned out. 

[jameszeigler834]

3 hours ago, Tmoney said:

It doesn't matter what he's been, what he IS is a LT thats been declining steadily. What he IS is a LT whose best attributes are that of a RT or G. Why cut him and pay him half his salary? There aren't 30 LTs better in the league, but there's 30 better OLs then the Colts. Optimize the talent you have with new talent you bring in. If its so simple why is our Franchise QB not playing rn? I'm not satisfied with an average LT, might not be easy to find but who has more excuses to do w.e it takes to find one then us?? Nobody. Thanks for the input and bleed blue

He is a LT with RT feet Jeff Saturday's words not mine.

[Stephen]

26 minutes ago, superrep1967 said:

I would not if there is a great LT sitting there and you need one take him even if there's more talent in other positions. . I know all the GM's say that they just draft for talent is a bunch of malarkey. They just say that in case the fans do not like there pick. However, Grigson did draft for talent with Dorsett, and we all know how that turned out. 

Grigson blew the dorsett pick. Defense was clearly the better choice there. Every body questioned the pick. Now what we were saying is if an average Lt sitting there in round 1 but an elite rb or wr is sitting there you dont take the average Lt despite it being a position of need. That is how you wind up like the Browns

[A8bil]

Always take the best available player.  They represent value which can be used to get what you need.

[superrep1967]

54 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Grigson blew the dorsett pick. Defense was clearly the better choice there. Every body questioned the pick. Now what we were saying is if an average Lt sitting there in round 1 but an elite rb or wr is sitting there you dont take the average Lt despite it being a position of need. That is how you wind up like the Browns

 I am just saying if a great player is there of need you take them. Even if there is more talent there in other positions is all, I am saying.

[akcolt]

5 hours ago, Tmoney said:

It doesn't matter what he's been, what he IS is a LT thats been declining steadily. What he IS is a LT whose best attributes are that of a RT or G. Why cut him and pay him half his salary? There aren't 30 LTs better in the league, but there's 30 better OLs then the Colts. Optimize the talent you have with new talent you bring in. If its so simple why is our Franchise QB not playing rn? I'm not satisfied with an average LT, might not be easy to find but who has more excuses to do w.e it takes to find one then us?? Nobody. Thanks for the input and bleed blue

Clearly you.are mistaken Castonzo IS a LT and the reason is there are not 30 better LT's you may not find 20. It's a big assumption that Castonzo will be a top G or RT. What are you basing that on? Why would a position change help with the mental lapses? Is illegal motion less of a penalty if it's committed by a G? We have to have someone to upgrade LT before we consider any of it. 

 

You act like finding a better player at LT is as easy as going out and getting one, Where? What LT are you eyeing in FA? How many LT's in this years draft are plug in upgrades? Philbin is transforming Clark as we speak? That may be your best bet. I am all for building the best OL possible with or without Castonzo. It's a little more complicated than I think Castonzo would be better at G. 

 

How about an improvement that can be made now. Play George at ILB. He gets an opportunity to start vs the Cards. He delivers a solid game PFF graded him as the highest rated player in a Colts uniform that Sunday. He easily rated the best game turned by an ILB all season. So we park him on the bench. 

 

[a06cc]

8 hours ago, Tmoney said:

Well, the speed rush sets up both of those techniques but I get what your saying. I don't see him getting bull rushed or over powered much at all by anyone. He also struggles with athletic edges who can chop his hands and bend the corner( Chandler Jones killed him with it week 2). Jack had so much promise before the injuries man, it breaks my heart to say this but I don't think we bring him back. This knee injury has lasted 3 years now, they might not all be related but he's compensating for something. Its looking like a career thing, and he hasn't been the same player this year. 

You need to rewatch the Rams and Cardinal game. AC was getting manhandled. I see it every game. I have a link I can send you in a DM to rewatch the games. Also yeah I do see what your saying somewhat about JM, but I’m the past 3 season he has played RT,LG and RG. So I think the switches has having to do with it. His spot should be at LG. That’s where he does his best. 

[Coffeedrinker]

8 hours ago, Tmoney said:

It doesn't matter what he's been, what he IS is a LT thats been declining steadily. What he IS is a LT whose best attributes are that of a RT or G. Why cut him and pay him half his salary? There aren't 30 LTs better in the league, but there's 30 better OLs then the Colts. Optimize the talent you have with new talent you bring in. If its so simple why is our Franchise QB not playing rn? I'm not satisfied with an average LT, might not be easy to find but who has more excuses to do w.e it takes to find one then us?? Nobody. Thanks for the input and bleed blue

Whaqt are his attributes that are best suited to RT or G?

[a06cc]

I’m not going any further about Castonzo. Been saying it for years. He himself said that he sucked. He caused the hit to Andrew in 2015. I’ve been calling him out on Twitter for years. He blocked me lol The line I’m hoping improves once Kelly returns. 

[Buck Showalter]

The thread title has been reworded to avoid being misleading...

[Tmoney]

9 hours ago, dgambill said:

Well if you want to have a great passing game you have to get the ball out quickly. KC has given up the second most sacks in the league....now granted they have the best running attack in the league so there are trade offs. We have given up quite a few sacks but can't run the ball effectively...so yes the line play needs to improve...but across the league OL play is in a sad shape in my opinion. Even Tom Brady has been sacked 13 times..only one less than our qbs and Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay has been sacked more than us. You don't think two teams whose qbs are the most valuable in the league don't want to protect them. I would love to find these great lineman but they are few and far between. The way you combat it isn't always by spending more dollars or higher draft picks...sometimes you have to change your offense around what you do well and what you don't. If that means shorter throws, quicker routes, more stacked wrs I'm not a coach but you got to get more creative to get the ball out faster. I'm all for investing in our qb but at some point the offense coordinator, coach, and yes the qb have to adjust with what we have and design an offense that works within the confines of our OL skillset. I don't think they are so awful that they are the worst or even close to the worst in the league. What happens is we get in behind the sticks in down and distance making our routes and play calls predictable as we too often see third and long. Combine that with the fact that teams are playing the run and don't respect our passing game (even with Brisset its obvious) they stack the line of scrimmage and play press coverage and your going to get an overwhelmed line. Luck can help with that...they will respect his ability to beat them deep and hurt them in the passing game. I also think Kelly will help sure up the middle of the line and who knows maybe slow down some blitzes and give help to our tackles as he can cover some one on ones. Again I'm going to just ask to see how it comes around with the additions of Luck and Kelly...but I do acknowledge your desire to improve the OL...it isn't a crazy one...it's very logical...but I think sadly its not something that can be done easily.

And I'm with you on making adjustments and hopefully getting a running game but it starts with the OL. It won't be easy but it can be done

[Tmoney]

8 hours ago, Stephen said:

Thats the thing. Say when we pick in the 1st round an elite rb is there. The pass rusher mlb and olineman are average. Do you reach for the position of need or draft the great player. Or do you pass on elite talent like the browns and trade back for addition picks. Browns passed on hooker for peppers and a te

Its looking like when we pick every prospect will be pretty special. 

[Tmoney]

7 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

If Castanzo moves, it should be to RT, not guard. 

 

I think Castanzo plays alot better with Mewhort next to him. Maybe RG is what we need the more and move Mewhort back to LG. 

Do you think we bring Mewhort back tho? I think we try to upgrade to a less injury prone but high caliber G in FA. Thats just me tho

[Tmoney]

7 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

AC isn't a bad Left Tackle, he's just decent.  

 

Ideally speaking I would want to draft a tackle highly, start him immediately at right tackle to give him some experience and then the year after that if he's doing well enough switch AC to RT.  

 

Ultimately though we have so many needs on this team it's insane people are so upset about AC.  He's decent but not great.  Lots of other areas that need to be improved on more.  

My biggest issue is that this OL straight up stinks, not specifically AC. I just want to optimize what we have with new talent. If we take a LT round 1, but through camp we decide he'd be better of starting his career on the R them I'm with you. But if he's a stud there's no need to wait

[Tmoney]

7 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

He is a LT with RT feet Jeff Saturday's words not mine.

Thats a perfect way of describing him, Saturday would know

[Blueblazes]

On 10/3/2017 at 9:01 AM, Coffeedrinker said:

The leverage comment is makes sense.

The rest of it, not so much.  The offensive line does not need to be retooled again.  Get a RT(may be Good but someone else)and another guard (possibly Bond) to pair with Mewhort and that is it.  Two more OLBs, ILB, RT and 3WR are all much bigger needs than LT.

The O line has not improved to any great degree at all. If they don't "retool" we will totally miss Andrew Luck's best years, wasting them with an O line that anyone not partial totally recognizes is terrible at best and dangerous at worst for the QB. Honestly?

[OLD FAN MAN]

7 hours ago, superrep1967 said:

He will if he has more protection.

i agree, if he can come back from the surgery

[OLD FAN MAN]

9 minutes ago, Blueblazes said:

The O line has not improved to any great degree at all. If they don't "retool" we will totally miss Andrew Luck's best years, wasting them with an O line that anyone not partial totally recognizes is terrible at best and dangerous at worst for the QB. Honestly?

i concur

[OLD FAN MAN]

20 minutes ago, Tmoney said:

Thats a perfect way of describing him, Saturday would know

i agree he is slow footed for a lt

[OLD FAN MAN]

26 minutes ago, Tmoney said:

Do you think we bring Mewhort back tho? I think we try to upgrade to a less injury prone but high caliber G in FA. Thats just me tho

i agree,

[Tmoney]

4 hours ago, akcolt said:

Clearly you.are mistaken Castonzo IS a LT and the reason is there are not 30 better LT's you may not find 20. It's a big assumption that Castonzo will be a top G or RT. What are you basing that on? Why would a position change help with the mental lapses? Is illegal motion less of a penalty if it's committed by a G? We have to have someone to upgrade LT before we consider any of it. 

 

You act like finding a better player at LT is as easy as going out and getting one, Where? What LT are you eyeing in FA? How many LT's in this years draft are plug in upgrades? Philbin is transforming Clark as we speak? That may be your best bet. I am all for building the best OL possible with or without Castonzo. It's a little more complicated than I think Castonzo would be better at G. 

 

How about an improvement that can be made now. Play George at ILB. He gets an opportunity to start vs the Cards. He delivers a solid game PFF graded him as the highest rated player in a Colts uniform that Sunday. He easily rated the best game turned by an ILB all season. So we park him on the bench. 

 

As far as having someone to upgrade before, thats exactly what I mean and probably should have said that in my first post. I don't think AC is top 10, maybe top 16. I'm not talking about mental lapses becuz thats far from his only issue. Like o said before its not easy, but I'm watching tape on all the top LT prospects this year and I'm really liking a few. Trey Adams from Washington has drawn comparisons to Taylor Lewan. Mike McGlinchey if we decide to trade back, Connor Williams as well. This is the year of the T, I follow college Football a lot becuz of the lack of talent our team has. LeRaven has so much potential, has all the tools to be great, but sadly is mentally weak. Watching him in pre season you can tell he's playing scared, playing not to get beat. You gotta be a dog to be a good NFL OL, you have to have a winner mentality. His kick step was fluid as a rookie, this year he's been on his heals terrified of the inside move and he ends up getting blown by of the edge. I do understand moving in to G is not an easy move at all, but with ACs skill set and his veteran attitude he has a chance. I'm not even 100% sure he could but I'd be willing to find out.

As far as George you'll get no argument from me. Bostic is not playing well in the pass or run game. I'm Also looking at ILB in this draft coming up and the WLBs are looking nice. Also hoping Anthony Walker can make strides 

[Tmoney]

2 hours ago, a06cc said:

You need to rewatch the Rams and Cardinal game. AC was getting manhandled. I see it every game. I have a link I can send you in a DM to rewatch the games. Also yeah I do see what your saying somewhat about JM, but I’m the past 3 season he has played RT,LG and RG. So I think the switches has having to do with it. His spot should be at LG. That’s where he does his best. 

You might be right about JM being best at LG, but I gotta think the biggest issue is he's knees man. Sad but probably true

[Tmoney]

2 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Whaqt are his attributes that are best suited to RT or G?

His run blocking is up there with any T in the game IMO, his footwork is suspect for a blind side protector but moving him to RT allows us to chip with a TE or RB, he has issues with quick inside moves becuz he plays heavy on his kick step so moving to G would allow him to play more balanced, he's an okay athlete for a T but a really good one for a G, his length and footwork as well would be excellent for a G, IMO hes best moving foward and attacking instead of playing backwards and on his heels.

Issues he would have at G would be adjusting his leverage to get low instead of standing tall, getting comfortable being first to punch instead of waiting to counter, and just the bigger bodies he'd see. 

[Tmoney]

51 minutes ago, Blueblazes said:

The O line has not improved to any great degree at all. If they don't "retool" we will totally miss Andrew Luck's best years, wasting them with an O line that anyone not partial totally recognizes is terrible at best and dangerous at worst for the QB. Honestly?

Couldn't agree more, and you have to think Ballard is fully aware of this. I know everyone wants go keep building that D and we will, but let's start by putting together an OL that's not bottom 5 in the league every year. Let's start by actually protecting our franchise QB that's already suffered more serious injuries then any QB should in their entire career. 

[Stephen]

2 hours ago, Tmoney said:

Do you think we bring Mewhort back tho? I think we try to upgrade to a less injury prone but high caliber G in FA. Thats just me tho

Depends on whether we can get someone better may still sign him as depth

[Coffeedrinker]

12 hours ago, Tmoney said:

His run blocking is up there with any T in the game IMO, his footwork is suspect for a blind side protector but moving him to RT allows us to chip with a TE or RB, he has issues with quick inside moves becuz he plays heavy on his kick step so moving to G would allow him to play more balanced, he's an okay athlete for a T but a really good one for a G, his length and footwork as well would be excellent for a G, IMO hes best moving foward and attacking instead of playing backwards and on his heels.

Issues he would have at G would be adjusting his leverage to get low instead of standing tall, getting comfortable being first to punch instead of waiting to counter, and just the bigger bodies he'd see. 

I'm sorry tmoney, none of that makes any sense.  They can chip with a TE or RB on the left side so that is not a reason to move him to the right side.  Additionally, because he is a bit slow footed, since most teams either move their speed rushers around or primarily play them on the offensive right side, he would face more speed at RT then he does at LT.

 

Also, I don't think his problem is he plays heavy with his kick step, he over extends with his kick step, which is why he is susceptible to the inside move.

 

Now as far as guard goes that is even worse.  His strength is in his upper body, not his lower body so at guard he would get bull rushed a lot.

 

Lastly, AC is not as bad a LT as many make him out to be.  His skills are not lessening, he has not gotten worse, the Colts blocking scheme is not good and the play calling does not help either, a lot of 7 step drops and 5 step drops from the gun put both tackles in a difficult spot.

[dgambill]

11 hours ago, Stephen said:

Depends on whether we can get someone better may still sign him as depth

Jack is good enough to start somewhere...he will get starter money. He may not break the bank but he isn't going to be riding the bench. I think Ballard will do a good job evaluating Jack and take everything in consideration. His past steller play, his injuries, and where he is at the end of the season...but Jack isn't going to stay for back up money. He is a good capable guard and someone will value him to start for them. Not saying he is going to break the bank but he is going to play.

[jameszeigler834]

15 hours ago, Tmoney said:

Thats a perfect way of describing him, Saturday would know

That's why I think next year we should draft our future at LT switch Castonzo to RT.

[a06cc]

On 10/4/2017 at 7:51 PM, Tmoney said:

You might be right about JM being best at LG, but I gotta think the biggest issue is he's knees man. Sad but probably true

You could be right about his knees. He should wear braces on both knees. Let’s just wait to see what happens as Kelly returns. I was upset about AC until today. Ryan Kelly should improve the line.

[Tmoney]

10 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm sorry tmoney, none of that makes any sense.  They can chip with a TE or RB on the left side so that is not a reason to move him to the right side.  Additionally, because he is a bit slow footed, since most teams either move their speed rushers around or primarily play them on the offensive right side, he would face more speed at RT then he does at LT.

 

Also, I don't think his problem is he plays heavy with his kick step, he over extends with his kick step, which is why he is susceptible to the inside move.

 

Now as far as guard goes that is even worse.  His strength is in his upper body, not his lower body so at guard he would get bull rushed a lot.

 

Lastly, AC is not as bad a LT as many make him out to be.  His skills are not lessening, he has not gotten worse, the Colts blocking scheme is not good and the play calling does not help either, a lot of 7 step drops and 5 step drops from the gun put both tackles in a difficult spot.

No need to be sorry were debating opinions here! Its all good! If your sending chips left and right who the heck is running routes out here? If your  chiping both sides you have no check down. Most teams move guys around, but they prefer to put them on the D right side O left side to get them on the QBs blind side(unless your QB is left handed). Yes hes over extends, but against certain opponents he almost has to so they don't take the edge from him being slow footed. You could be right about him being top heavy as far as his strength and that could be an issue, I'm under the impression that he's overall a pretty strong dude. I'm not calling the guy straight dog dodo, but I'm not satisfied with an average or good enough LT anymore. Yes the O scheme is terrible and it will be scraped and changed with the new OC we bring in next offseason but I just can't see how fans can defend this OL anymore. 40+ hits a year is not all on your OC. This OL is bottom 5 every year in pass blocking, this year is no different (28th via PFF). Also our run blocking as regressed this year as well. Its not good enough!

[Track Guy]

On October 4, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Valpo2004 said:

AC isn't a bad Left Tackle, he's just decent.  

 

Ideally speaking I would want to draft a tackle highly, start him immediately at right tackle to give him some experience and then the year after that if he's doing well enough switch AC to RT.  

 

Ultimately though we have so many needs on this team it's insane people are so upset about AC.  He's decent but not great.  Lots of other areas that need to be improved on more.  

 

Agree with this solution. Even if he isn't great, there aren't many ways to really upgrade over Castonzo at LT. I think if we brought in a really good college LT, we could either try him at RT or even at LG (like the Dolphins did with Tunsil). There are 2 guys who I would (at this point) like us to try that with, Connor Williams of Texas and Trey Adams of Washington.