YOUR GM
-
Posts
1,983 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by YOUR GM
-
-
I have answered all of your questions. Again you are jumping to conclusions. Seems to be a common theme with you.
I asked you about the user name because apparently you have waived the white flag in our last debate (in another thread), and you have not responded back. I was curious how someone would be so against Bruce Arians as our offensive coordinator and have a moniker of HireBruceArians.
And you have proven my point on your capabilities of making logical decisions (reoccurring theme), because if you believe that hiring Bruce Arians as head coach would have changed our offensive philosophy then there is no point in trying to have any logical debate with you. Had you said you have the moniker just to be sarcastic then I might have understood.
I will tell you what you can get though. You can get that Castonzo is our starting left tackle and your opinion on the matter amounts to about as much as the last time I flushed.
......You're not too bright, are you? I should just stop right here and wait until the light bulb goes off in your head...
Let me break this down for you:
- I didn't like Bruce Arians as our OC
- The only way Bruce would be gone is if SOMEBODY ELSE (like the Cardinals) hired him as their head coach after the 2012 season
- Thus the moniker "HireBruceArians" ......Sheesh
Also, you didn't answer any of my points. You've been deflecting for the past 2-3 posts now. And when have we had another debate? Legitimate question? Talk about "legend in your own mind"
-
This took all of 2 seconds two pull up:
Thornton, a versatile player in college, is expected to play right guard for the Colts.
No one is debating that "once in a while" players switch positions on the offensive line. However, these types of decisions are made by the coaches. Evidently the coaches at Boston College disagree with you. The coaches of the 2011 Colts disagree with you. And the new Colts regime also disagree with you. If it was not in the plans for him to move by now then stop holding your breath and waiting for it to happen.
That said, if the coaches decided to move him then it would be because they know best. I don't get paid to make those decisions and you do not get paid to make those decisions. The Colts coaches do.
My opinion on where Castonzo should play is solely based on what the coaches have decided. Had I thought he might play another position better then I sure would not have claimed it as a factual opinion. I would have merely said that it is possibly, blah, blah, blah and maybe the coaches will have a discussion about this. You have totally ignored it as just a possibility and an opinion of yours, but instead pretended that you have the answer and the Colts front office and Colts coaches do not have a clue.
I have no problem having my own opinion, and if you read enough of my posts you will soon realize that I do not always agree with the majority on the board. It just so happens that in this situation I do agree with the majority. And it is also true that I find your opinion on this topic to be comical.
Sure you are entitled to whatever opinion you want to have. Others are also entitled to call you out when you are wrong. And from what we can see at this point in time, you are most certainly wrong.
Stop being so sensitive and learn how to approach these situations better. This will help to avoid your feelings getting so hurt next time.
1) That's not a scouting report. It was obvious when Thornton was drafted and Thomas was penciled in at left guard that Thornton would be groomed to the right. I said find me a scouting report that "projected" him as a right guard exclusively? You won't
2) My point exactly. You don't have your own opinion
3) I don't claim my opinion is fact. Just because I'm willing to argue my opinion with conviction doesn't mean I claim to be right. I get argumentative when people's only rebuttal to my assertion stems solely from them not having their own opinion. It's cheap to fall back on the "..you're not a GM" argument. It's like, why are you even on a forum if you don't want to have a voice? I don't get it
-
You have completely made this up in your head. It doesn't surprise me though. The "even if" comment I made was added to show emphasis on an injury could happen in 2014.
But hey, what the heck. You are a legend in your own mind who knows what's best for the team over the coaches and the GM, right?
By the way, how could someone have a moniker that says HireBruceArians and not like the way he calls an offense?
So you're just not even gonna try to answer any of the points I made? Gotcha
And Ah, the universal forum signal for waving the white flag : Changing the topic to being about my username. I carry the moniker because I wanted someone to hire Bruce Arians as head coach so that he would no longer be our OC
Any other questions totally unrelated to anything we've been talking about?.....
-
The problem is that you give yourself too much credit. The reason people can have a leg to stand on when starting that Thornton is better suited as a right guard is because of two main factors. 1 he played right guard in college and 2 he was projected as a right guard in the NFL.
You think this gives you validation of your theory that Castonzo would be a better right tackle? Let me remind you that Castonzo was a left tackle in college and he was projected as a left tackle in the NFL.
No one will argue that we played Thornton at left guard because he was the best healthy backup guard that we had on the team after Thomas was injured. It makes sense because the logic fits.
But somehow, in your mind, you believe that Boston College and the Colts coaching staff had/have Castonzo playing the wrong position?
Sounds to me like you are a little full of it and I am sure that's how your words are coming off to some others as well.
Find me one scouting report that had him projected exclusively at right guard. He was projected as an OG, and it wasn't even certain he'd be on the right or left side when we drafted him. When they settled on Donald Thomas manning the left side, Thornton was then penciled in to eventually supplant Mike McGlynn at right guard. Also, Thornton started less than a handful of games, in a pinch at right guard in college. He spent more time at left guard, left tackle and right tackle than he did at right guard.
Andre Smith of the Bengals was projected as a left tackle and now plays right tackle. Eric Fisher was a projected left tackle that played all of last season at right tackle until he got more experience, and the departure of Branden Albert freed up a spot for him this coming season. There are numberous other examples of players being moved from where they were projected to play as a pro.
Your problem is, you somehow think people aren't allowed to have opinions if it goes against the conventional thought process. What would be your opinion if the Colts came out tomorrow in a press conference and said, "We've decided to make a shift and move Anthony Castonzo to right tackle.."??? Something tells me you'd be one of the people in here shifting their opinions after the fact.
Have your own opinion and stop always looking over your shoulder for validation
-
Technically I am correct so what are you having such a hard time understanding? Or are you just trying to deflect now.
Actually, what you were was completely misinformed, and were then immediately called out on it. Then when you finally looked up the details of the option (only after I called you out on not knowing it) you're now trying to cling to terminology in the option that grants the player a fully guaranteed contract in the off chance that they suffer the equivalent of a career ending injury in 2014 and take no snaps at any point in the 2015 season
So TECHNICALLY ... you're the one deflecting now, as the overall premise of your entire long-winded post was debunked. It's not a monumental risk for Grigson to pick up Castonzo's 5th year option that would only pay him market value for a year, and is not even guaranteed unless he suffers an injury so severe that he can't take any snaps in 2015.
For you to try and exaggerate the significance of the option further and suggest it's the equivalent of Grigson signaling his intentions to make Castonzo our left tackle for the next decade is.... Well, yeah. You know what it is
-
You are not correct.
Castonzo's contract in 2015 is guaranteed if a serious injury occurs.
"The window for exercising the option opens after the player’s third regular season ends, and it continues through May 3. As one league source recently explained it, teams would be foolish to exercise the option before May 3. They’d be foolish to do it because the amount of the fifth-year salary becomes immediately guaranteed for injury once the option is exercised."
In other words, if Castonzo blows out his knee in week 1 of the 2014 season (or in camp for that matter) and it impacts his ability to play in 2015 then we are the hook for his 7.4 million in 2015. This would have more of a chance of impacting the Colts financially if an injury happens later in the 2014 season, but it is a risk the Colts have taken. Grigson took the risk because he believes in Anthony Castonzo. Other players drafted in 2011, who do not have the support of their front office are not getting this option.
I'm well aware of that fact. It guarantees him the 2015 contract ONLY if he's severely injured during the 2014 season to the point that he can't play at all in 2015, not "even if..." as you suggested in your previous post. That is literally the only scenario in which the money would be guaranteed. He'd have to sustain an injury that would sideline him potentially close to 2 seasons in order to get the guarantee. I'd take that chance too if i were a GM. It's not a reflection of how good or bad the player is. The only head-scratcher is the Lions opted not to use their option on Nick Fairley (for reasons unknown) and I'm pretty sure he's going to get a big 2nd contract, from someone if not the Lions. Other than that, unless the player is a total bust or there are major red flags, there's no reason not to use the option from the team's perspective. It keeps young talent off the open market for an extra year.
The correlation you're trying make between the option and a team's long-term plans for a given player is just not there. Sorry
-
Would also like to note that, that 7.4 million figure is the average of the top 25 paid players at his position (excluding top 3), so even if they do pay him that in 2015, that's market value. He falls within the top 25 left tackles in the league
-
Let's try a different approach with you since nothing else is getting through.
Ryan Grigson played on the offensive line in college, the NFL, and the CFL.
He was then hired as a pro scout for the CFL and worked his way into a scouting position in the NFL. He was a scout with the Rams and then the Eagles, and then promoted by the Eagles as the director of college scouting. Grigson just kept climbing the ladder and was promoted by the Eagles again to the director of player personnel. I am betting that all of these very quick promotions were not based on his ability to get to Starbucks and back quicker than anyone else. The only way he could have pulled this off is by making good decisions.
Let me summarize this. So in less than 10 years of working as a scout, Grigson worked his way from a scout in the CFL to the director of scouting for an NFL team. And a few years later he became the Eagles director of player personnel.
We are on the same page here, right? Ryan Grigson played on the offensive line and climbed ranks from a CFL scout to an NFL GM in about 15 years. Good.
Why and the heck would Grigson invest 7.4 million dollars on a player for the 2015 season (guaranteeing the player money even if he is injured in 2014) especially when the 2014 season isn't even deep enough to hit camp yet?
There is only one reason why any rational person would pick up Castonzo's fifth year option. It is because he is in the long-term picture at LEFT TACKLE. No team with any sense is going to allow a good young left tackle just walk out the door.
Now here is the part where I might be able to reel you into reality. If Castonzo was just an average left tackle (as you say) who would be better suited at guard or right tackle (where we already have 35 million invested) then why pay him the money? I guess you just have ask yourself who would know better, you or Ryan Grigson. I hope you are at least logical enough to realize who is going to be right about this.
I'd suggest you actually research the details behind 5th year option before we really discuss this any further. The fact that you think he's guaranteed the salary because they picked up his option shows you don't understand it. They can still cut him at the end of the 2014 season and not have to pay him the 7+ million he's due at the start of the 2015 season. The option is basically just a chance for them to get an extended look at him for an extra year. An option to have options. It would be stupid for them not to pick up his option, unless he's just a flatout dud. He's not horrible, he's just not a top player at his position.
Sooooooo...... it's more than a stretch for you to draw the conclusion that because Grigson used said option, it somehow means he's going to be our starting left tackle until he's 35
-
Dude I like listening to people who have different view points, because I believe it is always important to look at situations from every angle. But it is very obvious that you are not paying very close attention. People in this thread have given you some very good analysis on Castonzo and for whatever reason you have dug your heels in. Castonzo is a very good (young) LT and he is improving every year. If you really believe that Castonzo will not be the Colts starting LT over the next decade then you are going to be sadly disappointed.
When he signs his next deal; he will cost us at least 6 million a year, but it will probably be closer to 8 million. In other words, he will likely be paid as a top 10 LT.
I can see Castonzo and Solder getting a very similar deal.
Considering most tackles don't even last a decade in the league, let alone stay with one team while doing so, I think you'll be the one sadly disappointed when he's not here. You're basically saying Castonzo will be in Walter Jones territory. Keep dreaming
Also, Castonzo and Soldier are not getting the same deal, I guarantee you that. lol Solder will be close to pushing 10+ million annually, my guess
-
You know how you think I misunderstand you? Well, I think you misunderstand me?
When I say Castanzo has got to be better than someone, that's not me accusing you of saying he's not better than some specific player....
That's me reminding you that since you called AC a mid-level left tackle, then by your own definition there have to be players that he's better than.
And that's all it means.
If you think he's the 22nd ranked player (my words, not yours) then there are 10 other LT's than he's better than.
If you think he's the 16th ranked player -- then there are 16 other LT's than he's better than.
Whatever rank you give him, (remember, mid level guy) then there a a bunch of other players that are worse than him.
That's my point. That's my only point.
I'm not the least bit interested in debating you player by player. You're entitled to believe whatever you believe.
Enjoy your weekend...... hope this coming week is great for everyone!!
Point well taken. I agree with your point. I think where you misunderstand me is my intent behind saying we should move him. I think he would make our team better at a position that focuses more on run and lead blocking, more so than one that's primary purpose is keeping ends and backers off our QB consistently. That doesn't mean I think he's a horrible left tackle, I just think he's average at his primary task in that position, and he's probably a way better right tackle. I agree that there is no clear cut player on our roster right now that could replace him, but I do believe Reitz at left tackle would not be as big a dropoff as some are making it seem. If i'm crazy for believing that, so be it
You enjoy your weekend too, Chief ;)
-
Dear God,
Thank you for not allowing this person to make actual decisions for the team I love.
Groupie
-
Sure, we do it to mitigate risk, but it doesn't mean a guy is as good at another position than his natural one. Especially at the pro level. I can write left handed in a pinch, but you don't want to read it.
You mostly tweak down, if you get my meaning. Left T to RT usually because they can't handle LT.
Along that note, I'll be interested in seeing if Thornton improves if they move him back to his natural side.
What you're saying right now is every bit as subjective as my opinion that Castonzo is a natural right tackle. The sentiment that Thornton is a natural right guard stems directly from something that was written on this forum by someone multiple times and is now repeated as if it's common knowledge. It holds no more weight than me saying Castonzo is a natural right tackle. Thornton played right tackle, left guard and left tackle in college. Right guard is actually one of the only positions on the line that he did not play in college. He played 1 game at right guard in the preseason when McGlynn got hurt. Other than that, nothing. So why has this become such an accepted idea on this forum all the sudden?... For the record, I agree that Thornton is probably better suited as a right guard, based on his skill-set....Just like I feel Castonzo is a better right tackle, based on his.
Also, there are plenty of examples of teams tweaking their line for more cohesiveness. Greenbay has shifted their guards to opposite sides, shifted guards to centers and tackles to guards all in the last year. And are tweaking it again this off-season: Link
The Broncos are strongly considering moving Franklin (one of the better right tackles in the league) inside at left guard, to make room for Clady when he returns, shifting Clark to right tackle. The irony in this is, Franklin was originally projected as a guard coming into the league: Link
The Raiders are shuffling their line now, as well, bringing in more versatile linemen and slating them at positions they've rarely played: Link
So like I said, it's not a foreign concept to shuffle the line anymore. The idea is to get your best 5 on the field, and play to their strengths. Teams are already doing it, and if the Colts someday feel like they have a better LT prospect than Castonzo or that he fits better at another position, he will be moved as well. I'm of the opinion that he's a natural right tackle, just like it's your opinion that Thornton is a natural right guard
-
HBA....
What planet do you live on?
Just the other day I said I was trying to stay out of threads where you're doing your typical hand to hand combat thing that you embrace so much.... in other words, I'm mostly ignoring you... and now you think I'm "foaming at the mouth"... and you think I should "get over any grudge I have for you"...
Trust me, if I was foaming and had a grudge, you'd know it in no uncertain terms.
There is no one here who makes me foam at the mouth. Not you. Not JShipp. Not anyone.
If I had a grudge, I'd respond to every post you make. You'd feel like I was stalking you. But I don't do any of that. I rarely engage with you.
If you find that I'm mis-reading your intentions, then you might want to consider being more clear in your meaning. As when you called Castonzo a mid-level left tackle and then said he's at best a right tackle or a guard. If you're more clear, I'll understand. I'm a reasonably bright guy.
If you'll notice, I try to never make any claims about any player over who is better than who. I try to make broader claims.... Andrew Luck is one of the best.... This player is good.... that player is very good... but I try not to get into direct comparisons because inevitably it leads to what you got yourself into with another poster.... a debate over which player is better, A or B... X or Y. I hate those discussions. They're pointless to me.
I try to stay focused on the Big Picture. And that is that AC is good enough for us to win with. He may not be elite, and I'm not sure he'll ever be elite... But he's getting better every year, and we can win with him.... the franchise likes him... they wouldn't have picked up his 5th year option otherwise.... and he'll likely be the Colts' left tackle for the rest of this decade.
To sum up..... I have no grudge with you. I'm not foaming at the mouth. We see things completely differently. We take a different approach on how we post. That's fine too. From time to time I'll ask about those differences. And you should feel free to ask about things I write that make you wonder how crazy I am. You wouldn't be the first person to think that! I'm totally fine with people not agreeing with me.
We should be good. This is an exciting time of the year for all fans!
Hopefully, with the draft, the Colts address the concerns that many of us have.... OL, Safety, Corner, Edge Rush... not necessarily i any specific order.... hopefully in a little more than a week, we're all talking about how pleased we are with Grigson and how much better the roster looks after the draft...
Peace.......
Listen, it's not that deep. This doesn't need to turn into a long exchange. Don't misquote me or put words in my mouth, bottomline
- I never said that Castonzo was not better than anyone, as you implied I was saying. That's you creating a strawman
- There was no contradiction in my prior posts. If it was misinterpreted, that's of your own doing. I see no direct correlation between me saying, "Castonzo is better at right tackle or guard, at best.." to me also saying, "..he's a middle of the pack left tackle." That's you once again looking for an argument by taking snippets of 2 totally different posts of mine and deliberately trying to paint them as if i'm saying something contradictory. I even went on to clarify my exact thoughts by composing a summary sentence in response to your accusation of my posts being contradictory, and you're still in here trying to argue about it.
- I said you were "foaming at the mouth" because you, once again, interjected yourself into one of my exchanges, and then proceeded to make claims about my post that simply are not true. If you would stop doing that, I'd have no problem with you.
And I hope Grigson aces this draft, as well. We in a infuse of talent at multiple positions, with a limited number of picks
-
This notion that you can put a LT on the right or vice versa and expect them to play to a pro standard is incorrect. It's like asking someone who's right handed to use their left. It's different movement and a different technique.
I never played Oline, and don't claim to be an expert, but I've played some football and been around these guys. I'm sure we have some ex OTs here that can back me up.
Most linemen are trained from high school to play multiple positions now. Castonzo himself has played right tackle in college. The majority of our linemen are, in fact, still on the roster because of the versatility they possess as 2-3 position players. Tweaking the line is becoming a more common thing in the league. There are multiple examples just over the past few seasons, alone
-
You mean Jordan Gross who just announced he's retiring?
That Jordan Gross?
Look..... in another post, you yourself already called him a mid-level left tackle. That puts him somewhere roughly in the range of 11-22 out of 32 possible starting LT's.
So, he's got to be better than... somebody?!
Even if you think he's at the bottom end of the range, he's still better than 10 other guys.
Why you feel the need to go player by player is mystifying to me? The Colts picked up his option. They like him whether you do or not. And from where I sit nearly 2000 miles away, when they can sign him to a long term contract -- they will.
And they'll keep him right where he is...... at left tackle.
I didn't know about Gross' retirement. My mistake
As for the rest of your post, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say he wasn't better than anyone. You need to seriously get over whatever grudge you have with me, because you're not even fully reading my posts anymore before you're foaming at the mouth ready to chime in. My post was in reference to the BOLDED teams that the previous poster said would love to have Castonzo over their current starters. That's not true, in my opinion. Cordy Glenn is bordering on pro-bowl level of play and Dunlap was in the upper half of the league of left tackles, probably top 10. Riley Reiff had a solid 2nd season last year and I doubt the Lions would start Castonzo over him at this point, either
-
Well deserved. Castonzo improved a lot from last year and was one of the most underrated LT's in the league. The Giants, Packers, Falcons, Saints, Steerlers, Titans, Panthers and Raiders would love to have a player like Castonzo. He would be a huge upgrade over their starters. I also think he would start over the Lions, Bills, and Chargers LT's if they had to battle it out in training camp. He's the best LT we've had since Tarik Glenn and were fortunate to have him.
You're nuts. Reiff had a good rookie year, and Glenn and Dunlap were studs last year..... And are you implying that Castonzo is better than Jordan Gross?
-
Man, you're on a roll today. Another 'like' for you
-
It looks like I will be in the minority opinion on this, but Bruce Arians was a far better offensive coordinator, and in my mind it is not even close. Pep really doesn't belong in the same sentence with Arians at this point. Not too many people can say they have a resume as stellar as Bruce Arians.
Can Pep become a very good offensive coordinator to compare to the likes of Arians? Of course. But we are no where near there yet.
Plus, I am not sure you will find a better motivator than Arians. He has the "it" factor about him. Players love to play for him and they show it on the field.
The only thing about Arians I liked were his guts. We missed that last year, situationally. He was the perfect balance to Chuck because Chuck appeared to be too gun-shy at times this past season. As for Arians play calling, he was just as dependent on Luck turning his lemon calls into lemonade as Pep was last year. The only difference was, Pep's calls put us in holes because we weren't moving the ball, whereas Bruce's calls put us in holes because they were risky and lead to more turnovers. I'd say it's been a wash, so far.
I like the potential in Pep's scheme way more than I liked Arians, however. Pep showed more adaptability in the last 4 games of the season last year than Arians has in his entire career. Bruce will always be about the long ball, and he's never going to change his philosophy. Pep is ground-oriented and morphed his offense into a no-huddle, shotgun, passing attack by the end of the season. The great coordinators adjust to circumstances, not stubbornly stick to ideologies for the sake of their own ego... Bruce is just fine where he's at in AZ, thank you
-
I like Pep's offense better than Arians except for the FB. It seems to be a bit more creative for the most part (except for the one play where Ballard did the helicopter spin into the end zone.....that play was majestic)
It seems like Arians got Luck blasted a lot more waiting for the deep routes to develop, but I do think it helped him develop timing/and maybe even long ball accuracy.
Let's see what happens with the Pep/Chud offense this year. I'd like to see them let Luck run more. The guy has serious wheels. All he needs to work on is sliding.
Yeah, I'm hoping Chudzinki's influence will take affect in the intermediate passing game with the tight ends. We don't know how much influence he will exactly have but he will, no doubt, have a positive impact on that particular unit. I know Pep likes multiple tight end sets as well (mainly used for the run game) but I, too, am hoping we see less Havili and more Dwayne Allen, simply because of the versatility 2-3 tight end sets bring in both run and pass situations
-
Reggie Wayne's injury depression for the team was still lingering when we played the Rams & others
Concept wise, Pep's offense is better. Luck's picks were cut in half (literally) than what they were during Arians control
So I'll take the less turnover offense over the turnover machine offense.
You point out the deficits we faced yet forget games in Arians like the Packers game or games where Luck is throwing 3-4 picks & have to come back or defense has to bail him out
Pep had deficits when injuries hit us. Before all those injuries, the offense was working
It was still inconsistent and flawed because of the offensive line. The Chargers and Seahawks games were examples of Chuck and Pep's stubbornness digging us in a hole, and in the case of the Chargers game, contributed to losing it for us. Though, I'd say Chuck's overall conservatism was a greater factor in that loss than the offense itself. Still, the flaws were there even before Reggie's injury.
That being said, I'd still chose it over Arians' offense. It was too risky, and just as predictable, on the opposite end of the spectrum
-
A lot depends on what happens next week. The possibility of Houston taking Clowney has me a little nervous. I think we still take the division but I can see them splitting with us this year if they have a tandem of Watt/Clowney.
Overall, I say 10-6 or 11-5 again
-
Look....
It appears we see most everything completely differently.
I don't think I'm going to offer you some perspective and you're going to say.... "Oh, I get it now.... I see what you're saying. I'm going to re-think my view on this..."
And the same goes from you to me. I don't see myself adopting your view of things.
So.... no, I don't wish to engage in any debate.
I wanted to get your perspective on those two quotes... you offered it. Fine.
I'm trying to avoid threads where you're engaged in hand to hand combat here.... and you appear to be avoiding me.
Probably best for the both of us.....
I guess where we differ is, I'm not uncomfortable debating, as long as the focus stays on the argument and not about any personal grudges carried over from other threads. And I can acknowledge that someone has made a solid point, even if it is in counter to an assertion I've made. I've actually backed off of my earlier statement that Reitz could start (because of his durability issues) even though I still feel like he's better at pass protection than Costanzo. I threw the suggestion out there knowing full well it will never happen. It sparked an interesting discussion though, so I'm good with that
You seem like a smart guy but if you feel like we need to avoid each other, I'm good with that too.
-
To Hire Bruce Arians....
Apologies, I don't know how to multi-quote..... but if you come across my post here, the two quotes below are both from you. I cut and pasted them.
On the one hand, you call Castonzo...
"...a middle of the pack left tackle to guard or right tackle."
But on the other hand, you call Castonzo...
"He's a guard or right tackle, at best"
I find these two sentence are not compatible. I think they're contradictory. Which is Castonzo?
A guard or right tackle at best?
Or a middle of the pack left tackle?
I look forward to your response...... (ahhhh.... I think?!)
If you want to word pinch/bicker, then no, they are not compatable. You're being petty now. You clearly understand my overall premise
How about this,
"Anthony Costanzo's most optimal position(s) on the offensive line, in my opinion, are at right tackle or guard. He is, however, a middle of the pack left tackle, as it stands."
Now would you like to actually argue reasons why you disagree with that assertion (such as physical limitations, messing with continuity, learning curve, lack of necessity), like coffeedrinker and a few others have, or would you like to continue to try and "catch" me by pigeon-holing what I say, or bringing totally unrelated topics into the discussion like someone else has done?...
And I'm.... indifferent to reading your response
-
How do you know Reitz is the better Pass blocker? all we have seen of him is on G, pass blocking as a G is not the same as pass blocking as T.
I like Reitz a lot, always have, but i think moving Reitz to LT would be a huge mistake. I think power pass rushers will kill him. I think speed rushers can get by him eventually.
Reitz was drafted and groomed as a tackle, and was moved to guard when he came here because of injuries and has been there ever since. He played snaps at tackle for us last year in preseason (and looked solid) against the 1's. Very limited sample size to declare one way or another if he could start, but he at least showed he's a capable pass blocker at the position, as you're claiming we haven't seen yet
Colts Use 5th year option on Castonzo
in Colts Football
Posted
We're talking about Thornton