YOUR GM
-
Posts
1,983 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by YOUR GM
-
-
So you are the police of where and what I can post in a given thread?
You yourself have admitted that you overstate things. My pointing it out here is not news to you nor to the rational among the posters in this forum.
I simply find the comment that Grigson is not serious about building an offensive line because he did it differently than you prefer to be the height of comedy.
Look, you can derail whatever thread you want. I think it makes you appear as if you can't really address what i've said by trying to disqualify my posts, attacking my character. Pretty cheap if you ask me, but whatever. And i'm not the police, I'm just letting you know that if you want to further talk to me about the topic.. it will be so in that thread. I already explained my logic in that thread. The fact that you didn't like it is really of no concern to me. You seem to initiate all of our encounters. I couldn't really care any less about your opinion, to be quite honest
-
I'm not seeing where we disagree on much. I think I just feel like Costanzo is mediocre at his current position whereas you feel he's good. As for his strengths/weaknesses in relation to where they can be best utilized on the line, I think you kinda make my point for me. How would Costanzo not be better in a position(s) that would allow him to further showcase his pull ability and stout run blocking, and hide his subpar pass blocking technique? I think putting him to the right would actually be perfect if we didn't already have a solid right tackle as it isYes moves happen along the oline that is true. But usually it's usually because the weaknesses the player has will be less noticable or not as big a deal at another position, they don't move them there when; a, they are doing well at their current position and b, their weaknesses are in areas that need to be strengths in the new position.
Anyways, all of this is moot. He's not being moved. I threw an unconventional suggestion out there. I expected the negative feedback. I still believe it to be true, but I hope your viewpoint is correct, and we see improvement this year. That Rams game still sticks out in my head. I understand Robert Quinn makes a lot of players look bad, but Costanzo had a tight end shading Quinn, allowing him more time to get in proper position and still got blown up on that strip sack play. That just can't happen
-
I agree, that both joe and anthony are similiar talents, but joe cannot stay healthy and this does give pause to putting greater faith in him. As of now, joe's a capable guard with the ability to play tackle, if need be. I think we're fortunate to have this insurance policy that is big joe. I think his production would mirror anthony's (if givin' an opportunity) , i really do. But injuries are a huge red flag to me.
I don't think Joe is the answer at left tackle at all. I just feel like he could play the position comparable to what Costanzo is right now, freeing up Costanzo to shore up the interior line. But yes, Reitz's injury struggles are well documented and I don't think he could be counted on to start 16 games. Costanzo is durable, if nothing else. I commend him for that much. I hope, as coffeedrinker said earlier, he really is turning that corner and improves his play significantly. I'm rooting for him to be our franchise caliber left tackle, but I still call a spade a spade. He's not there yet, and people celebrating him as if he's anything more than a slightly above average tackle at the moment is comical to me
-
Basically all of your points are over the top. So tell me if this statement from you last week is a combo of hyperbole backed by a logical argument. Paraphrasing here but you said that Grigson would show you that he is SERIOUS about building the o'line if he were to have signed someone that could start on the majority of teams in the league. So by that statement a GM can only be serious about building a team if he does so in a way that you agree with?
Please show me the logical connection in that statement.
The irony. You paraphrase and use hyberbole to somehow prove I am guilty of frequent hyperbole. Your bolded conclusion is a total exaggeration and mischaracterization of anything I actually said in that thread. Way to discredit yourself
And I did back up my statement with logical arguments in that very thread. If you care to continue that discussion, you're more than welcome to revive the topic in that thread, not here
-
Lol! I think the ridiculous analogy that I made was on par with the idea of replacing an improving young LT with a journeyman G who's injured almost as much as he's active.
We're so far apart on this discussion that it's probably best if we agree to disagree and move on. Good luck, I'm sure there are some people who agree with you.
I don't think it will ever happen, and I'm not suggesting that they really will do it. I'm merely saying Reitz is a better pass blocker than Costanzo, and that Costanzo would probably be a very good guard or right tackle. The only way Costanzo will be moved is if we land an obvious upgrade, I understand that. I'm just saying that, just because LT is not the weakest position on our line at the moment does not mean we shouldn't be looking for an upgrade at some point. And tweaking the line is actually a cost effective way to upgrade multiple positions, if those players excel in their new positions. It has happened numerous times before and it will happen again. Your comparison can't even really be considered an analogy, in my opinion. Moving a franchise QB to linebacker is not even remotely in the same ballpark as moving a middle of the pack left tackle to guard or right tackle. I'd say it would be on par with trying to convert a 3-4 DE to a 4-3 DT, if anything.
Also, if we're going to hold out and penalize every player that has ever struggled with injuries on this team, we probably wouldn't be able to field half an NFL roster right now. Reitz is good when he's healthy, and he's just as much an OT as he is a guard. I'd actually say he should probably be an OT exclusively, because he struggles blocking the run and excels in pass protection
But very well. Agree to disagree
-
Pot, meet kettle.
What was hyperbolic about what I said? I stated an unpopular opinion. That doesn't make what I said hyperbole. Just stick to your tiresome "dear god" shtick and carry on, thanks
-
Ok, you're gonna have to help me here. I just googled, "NFL GM's surveyed, half would love to have AC..." and I got nothing.... Just saw a couple of links to a few air conditioning websites, that's it. Can you give me your source or a link?Once, and Foster is out for the year.
It's funny to me that half the teams in the league would love to have AC as their LT, and we have fans that want to move him to G. Like there are LTs growing on trees to replace him.
I'm concerned about our interior line and our D backfield. Out tackles are the least of our worries.
-
Sheesh...It may not be a horrible idea, but it's in the same area code.
Luck would make a good OLB, and since we have an experienced backup QB should we move him?
If you're going to engage in hyperbole, at least use it in tandem with a logical comparison. It'll actually have some affect that way. I'll let you try again
-
People crack me up, let's take a guy who played LT in high school, LT all but his freshman year in college (a college that is known in some circles as lineman U) and all three years of his professional career at LT; and move him to a position he has never played before and lacks the upper body strength to do so effectively in the NFL. There are times when I'm glad fans do not run the team
His footwork is not the problem, his biggest problem is his hand punch is a little slow and he lacks the arm and chest strength to lock out his arms when the rusher gets a half step on him. But from what I've read, AC took two weeks off at the end of the season and then began hitting the weights and has significantly increased his stregth, just like he has every year since he began at BC as a 220lb freshman RT. His next biggest problem is he sometimes gets too high out of his stance, same problem Glenn used to have (although they did/do it differently... Glenn would straighten his legs and lose mobility and footwork, AC straightens his back and loses leverage).
Linemen convert to other positions all the time. Heck, Jason Peters (regarded as one of the best left tackles in the league) didn't play a lick of tackle in high school or college. He was a D-linemen, converted to tight end, converted to all-pro/pro bowl left tackle. Just because the Colts staff doesn't have the nads to try and shuffle things up when the line is struggling, does not mean it's a horrible idea to try and build an optimal lineup by playing to the roster's strengths. I'm willing to bet that if Costanzo doesn't stick here long term, somebody will try him out as either a guard or right tackle. The Vikings did it with Charlie Johnson after we let him walk a few years ago.
Switching positions along the O and D lines is not really ground breaking stuff. It's actually becoming more and more common. The Ravens won their most recent superbowl in large part because of the shuffling they did to their O-line right before the playoffs started. I know this isn't madden, but it's also not like i'm suggesting we move him to cornerback, either. I think the learning curve he'd face (if we made that adjustment) is a bit overstated around here by some
-
Shockingly and thankfully the Colts disagree with you.
Hey, shockingly, they "agreed" with me about Satele and McGlynn.... Only a year later
-
We can debate what AC's issues are that prevent him from being an elite LT.... feet, hands... strength... set-up... whatever.
But I'm not sure we can debate this.
1. He's gotten better every year.
2. For all his problems, both real and imagined, last year he gave up................ 4 sacks.
For a left tackle, facing the best pass rushers the opposing teams have.... and having a rookie left guard next to him, AC gave up....................... 4 sacks.
And for some, "he's at best a RT, but probably should be moved inside...."
Dear God, where is JSkinnz when we need him!
Psh,
Look, you can "dear god" me all you want. I don't care about sacks allowed totals. Playing with a scrambling QB, or one with a quick release can make any O-line unit look halfway competent, but that's not telling the real story. I care about what doesn't show up in the stat sheet, like pressures and hits..... which Costanzo surrenders his fair share of. Anyone who has watched our games and is being honest with themselves knows that he struggles in pass protection. He just does, i'm sorry. AC is not horrible, but he's not really that good either. His impact is severely over-hyped around here, was my point. The guy's best attribute is his run blocking and ability to get to the next level. His primary weakness is his pass protection. He takes poor angles and loses leverage quite a bit, and as a result, gets bull rushed and ran by more than you'd like to see from someone protecting the blindside of your franchise. He is fine when he works in tandem with the left guard, but you can't leave him on an island by himself with even a slighty above average pass rusher and expect him to lock that person down consistently. That's what a premier left tackle does. He's not a horrible lineman, and I agree that he was our 2nd best linemen last year, and most consistent since being here. I just think his natural position is probably at right tackle or guard, and he's not really that special as a left tackle.
It's totally understandable that Colts fans are falling for the Costanzo fools gold, a bit. We haven't seen dominant line play here since Glenn retired. Average begins to look decent when the last impression of left tackle play we've seen before Costanzo was Charlie Johnson/Tony Ugoh
-
If you put Reitz in at LT at the start of the season, who's going to play that spot the other 15 games?
Our whole team is injury-prone. Does it really matter? We're so injury-prone, guys are forced into retirement before even taking a snap here
My Leg!
-
He was our 2nd best lineman (arguably 1st) last year. He's been the most consistent. He's not going anywhere
Faces on the oline have changed yet Anthony still remains
That REALLY isn't saying much, in my opinion. I still think he's not a left tackle. He's good blocking out in space but he is anything but a tactician as a pass blocker. He's just downright bad, at times. Move him inside at guard and bring Reitz in as left tackle until we find a legit anchor at the position. I know I'll probably get flamed for saying that, but I honestly believe Reitz is better suited to be blindside protector than Costanzo. I think Costanzo has a place on this team, but he needs to be moved inside. He's a guard or right tackle, at best
-
And then we're back to the starting strategy. Again, there's a risk with Donald Thomas and the backups, but I think getting rid Satele and McGlynn is the key. As has been discussed, I think Holmes should get a shot, and I think his "redshirt" year can be a positive. I like Thornton, though he has a lot of improvement to make. I think we're fine at tackle. So a starting five of AC-DT-KH-HT-GC should be better than what we've had the past two years. The strategy Grigson has gone with is to let the two youngsters he drafted last year get into the action. I don't think that's a gamble. I think that's normal, and it's the way a team should be built, for the most part. You draft players, then you give them a chance to produce/contribute.
I think it would be awesome if we signed a new veteran guard and center, so that we could check those question marks off. But that would render last year's draft picks useless. And the preferred way to build a team is through the draft.
I see your logic, I just disagree with the idea that bringing in a talented veteran guard or center would render Holmes or Thornton useless. The extra veteran would be insurance for Thomas more so than anything else. We both seem to be in agreement that in order for Holmes to have success next year, the guard play has to be consistent.
Even if we entertained the idea of bringing in another center to start, recent comments from Grigson and Holmes suggest they are open to playing him at guard, if need be. What I'm getting at is, I'm fairly confident they would work Holmes and Thornton into the rotation even if we brought an established vet in as insurance.
As it stands right now, I feel like guys are being handed the job, more so than winning it (if we don't get anyone in the draft who is able to push for a starting job.) Guys like Louis and Costa were not brought in to compete, regardless what has been said. We'll see, but I agree with esmort. He's gambling on a unit that really should be close to a sure thing by now, going into year 3
-
Again, this isn't my preferred strategy. I just recognize the strategy for what it is. If you refuse to acknowledge that Grigson CHOSE to roll with the players he scouted and his coaches have spent the last year developing, then sure, you can look at this offseason and say that he has ignored the offensive line. But if you stop comparing what Grigson has done with what you wanted him to do, then maybe you can see what the team is shooting for.
I wrestled with this from the moment the season ended, trying to figure out not only what Grigson might do, but what I'd do in his situation. I went from wanting EDS (and I would have been all over him, offering him considerably more than he got from the Bucs), to settling for a younger player who would cost less, but could compete with Holmes and provide depth at guard -- Joe Hawley, from the Falcons (I also would have offered him more than he got from Atlanta, but as it stands, he never hit free agency; rumor has it the Colts were interested, by the way, but he was on my radar well in advance). After Hawley was off the market, I would have tried to sign Will Montgomery or Jonathan Goodwin as veteran competition and depth. (Grigson chose Costa; no one's favorite player, but it still scratches the itch.) I also would have tendered Reitz, and signed a low-level guard; Grigson tendered Reitz, and signed Lance Louis.
Similar approach, but I would have gone in a different direction than Costa and Louis, and that seems to be your beef with Grigson's strategy. You don't like the veteran depth. Costa is gone, so that obviously didn't make our team better. Louis has a significant injury history, so he might not work out, either. And if Thomas isn't 100%, that would hurt as well. But that's just depth. And depth players can and will be added throughout the offseason, in a lot of different ways. That's why I brought up the draft and late free agency.
The starters are here, and have been since last offseason. Presumably, it's AC, DT, KH, HT, GC. And I think that's a promising unit, assuming health. We've jettisoned the two worst linemen from last year (perhaps the worst C/RG duo in the league, and I'm not exaggerating), and the two guys we drafted last year are penciled into those spots. And if there are injuries to those five, guys like Reitz and Nixon, who performed decently in their reserve roles last year, can step in. Who knows what Louis or Austin can or will do, but they are a part of the picture as well.
It's still a work in progress, not a finished product. Between the draft and late free agency last season, Grigson added a net of five offensive linemen to the roster. A couple weeks into the season, he added Nixon, who stayed on the roster for the rest of the season.
So again, my point is not that our offensive line is awesome and there are no question marks at any level, and anyone who thinks there are is just being critical of Grigson. My point is that it makes sense for Grigson to use the young players he drafted last year, because this is what he drafted them for. So while I would like another veteran interior lineman, preferably someone who doesn't have significant injury concerns, I see the value in being patient and waiting to see how things play out over the next few weeks. I'm certainly not panicking because we lost Phil Costa, a player none of us were thrilled about in the first place. I think we can easily plug another player into that spot at anytime between now and the start of camp, and even beyond then. But the big improvements have been made with the replacements for Satele and McGlynn, and I'm optimistic about those developments.
That's a fair assessment. For the record though, it has nothing to do with his initial strategy. As I've said, I'd be on board with that strategy if DT wasn't recovering from a serious injury and Holmes had more reps last year. Those two things go hand-in-hand in my argument because I feel one of the key factors to Holmes success this coming season will be the guard play around him. So to have uncertainty at the guard position when you're planning to roll with a raw talent like Holmes is a big gamble.
I felt he should have been more aggressive in finding a sure starter at either guard or center, and let it sort itself out. As it stands now, I feel like Holmes is being handed the job, and Thomas is being given the benefit of the doubt that both his I injuries are completely behind him. It's just not very smart, IMO, especially considering the fact that he and Pagano continue to preach about keeping Luck upright as priority #1. I don't think I'd be quite as annoyed if they didn't continue to make statements like that. Their actions do not match their words at all
-
Thornton has a ton of ability. He needs to develop more awareness and play with more balance. But I think he's got the goods.
Holmes is a question mark, but I look at him as a rookie, just with more pro readiness. Being exposed to the team, the playbook, etc., and having spent the last year working on his body without distractions -- school, scouting, pro days, private workouts, all of which are entirely different from what a professional football player spends his time doing -- he's ahead of the curve. If guys like the Pouncey brothers and Travis Frederick (and many others over the years) can step in as rookies and play reasonably well, Holmes ought to be able to hold his own.
Surely you understand the difference between the Pouncey's and Frederick, and Khaled Holmes, right? Those guys were drafted in the first round, and expected to be day 1 starters. In the case of the Pouncey's, they were drafted in the middle of the first round, which is extremely rare for the center position.
I don't think just because Holmes sat on the bench and studied the playbook all last year makes it even the least bit reasonable to compare him coming in raw to those guys, who were more pro ready than most veteran centers at the time. It's just funny how quickly widely accepted opinions shift around here.
A couple of months ago, it was presented as fact around here that Holmes wasn't strong enough and didn't play because he wasn't ready. Now 2 or so month's later, we're comparing him to the Pouncey brothers, solely because of the position they all play. I don't get it, sorry
-
Why do so many people assume that because Holmes wasn't given the chance to start over Satele then he must be a worse center? We all seen for ourselves last year that McGlynn was a better center than Satele, but he only got to play there when Satele was out due to injury. The way I see it, that means we can't assume that Satele was the best center on our roster just because he was the starter.
That sentence in itself shows how asinine the coaching staff's decisions were at times, regarding the depth chart, and should have you worried. Not our best center, yet started every game as long as he was healthy.....??
-
Yeah, you're way off, IMO. The primary source of concern -- particularly in this thread -- is Khaled Holmes at center. And whether he got time last year or not isn't really relevant. Young players get inserted into the lineup all the time, and work out often enough. Grigson drafted him so that he could be the starter. That's the strategy, and it dates back to last offseason. Getting rid of Satele and McGlynn allows the strategy to mature. It's not that difficult to understand. At least it shouldn't be.
It is sort of a gamble, a risk. If Holmes doesn't work out, it's a problem. But the offseason isn't over yet. There's this thing in a couple weeks that the NFL does, where teams get to select collegiate players to join their team, I think it's called the draft? Then there's summer free agency, mostly post-June 1 cuts. There are other veteran players still available. Even if you don't believe in guys like Louis, Reitz, Nixon, etc., the team is not a finished product.
That may be your primary source of concern but you can hardly dismiss the fact that Donald Thomas is a major question mark as well. You can deny it all you want but it's the truth. He's recovering from a severe tendon tear. There's no guarantee that he'll even be the same player anymore.
And whether Holmes got time or not is very relevant. If it was, indeed, the plan to make him the starter all along, one would think that they would try to get him reps last season. It's ridiculous that I even have to explain how it might not be a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket, on a player who has little game film and has yet to take a professional snap at the position he will be starting all year. You're right, I'm crazy for thinking that's not a smart idea.
Also, I'd just like to note that you're kind of talking out of both sides right now. One minute it's, "We got our starters last off-season. It wouldn't make sense to bring someone else in without giving them a chance first" then when I bring up the fact that those "starters" have serious question marks surrounding them, and it would be smart to have some insurance, you say, "Oh, well, we have the draft and post June cuts to address that if need be..." Seems like you're cherry-picking, a bit, IMO
-
"Better player" is a moving target, and certainly isn't definitive.
And your "best man for the job" line is great and motivating, but it's not true in practice. You don't go out and sign the best free agents every year. Sometimes you give your young players a chance to fill the void. Heck, sometimes you draft young players to start for you that year.
If you're arguing against Grigson's strategy, that's one thing. That appears to be the conversation we're now having. I agree that a different strategy would have been preferable to us here on the message board, because then we would feel better about checking center off on the needs list. What I don't agree with is the statement that Grigson has done nothing to address the offensive line, the assertion that the line isn't or hasn't been a priority. As I've stated over and over again, the moves that Grigson made last offseason will be crucial for us in 2014. What's foolish is judging what you don't know yet. There's nothing wrong with being patiently and cautiously optimistic. Six months from now, we all might be pleasantly surprised.
What you don't seem to understand is, things change. Between last off-season and now, what all has transpired? If Donald Thomas wasn't recovering from 2 serious injuries, I would be on board with this strategy. If Khaled Holmes had actually got some playing time last year, I would be on board with this strategy. If the guys he brought in as backups didn't have their own struggles with the injury bug, I would be on board with this strategy. None of that is the case, however....So to try and present what Grigson is doing right now as anything more than an extreme gamble is not being honest, to the forum or yourself. He should've acquired a starting caliber interior linemen as insurance. There are just way too many question marks, stemming from events which occurred long after we acquired Holmes, Thornton, Cherilus and Thomas.... And it is completely fair to say that Grigson has ignored the offensive line this off-season, when you factor in the aforementioned hurdles that I just spoke of. It's really not that hard to understand
I guess all we can do is wait (and hope that i'm wrong)
-
No, no, no. Grigson should have been able to look through Costa's eyes and see into the depths of his soul, to make a determination about the depth of his character and motivations, to deduce that he would lose the will to play within the next 45 days. Anyone of us would have been able to do so.
/sarcasm
OR... he could've just looked at the fact that the guy has played a total of 6 games the last 2 years....
Not saying Grigson should've been able to detect Costa was going to retire off that fact, but one would think that questions of his health would've came up during the interview at some point. There were better, more durable players available. This whole incident only highlights how big of a waste it was to pursue a gimpy player with marginal talent to begin with
-
GrigsonI can't think for myself?!?
Really?!?
Who's doing the thinking for me?!?
-
I read just fine.
Here's how much HATE you have for Grigson.
You wrote that fans here were going easy on Grigson and then made the crack that Grigson could trade Luck for a bag of skittles and fans would continue to have faith in him. I read just fine, thanks very much.
And now in THIS POST you write (and I can't believe it) that there's egg on Grigson's face. You acknowledge that there was no way for Grigson to know about this, and yet you insist that there's egg on his face. "How could there not be?"
Easy. Because Grigson did nothing wrong. This would be like you writing (which you didn't) that it would be Grigson fault whenever someone gets injured. Is it Grigson's fault that Thomas got hurt? Stuff happens. Costa retiring unexpectedly falls under the heading of "stuff happens"....
There's no egg on Grigson's face. And you insisting that there is shows how completely irrational you're being here.
You've got so much hate boiling up inside you I'm not even sure you're aware of what you're writing anymore. Logic has completely abandoned you. Hate will do that.
I don't hate Grigson. I don't like many of his moves lately but i still think he's done a good job overall. I've explained my post already so I'm not gonna repeat myself. If anyone hates anyone around here, you hate me. Go take a nap and stop following me. Lol
-
Actually, you've made this personal with multiple attacks at my character. You can't seem to think for yourself so there's no point in even talking to you further.You've lost it. Again.
I don't have to know how much Grigson knows. All I have to know is that he knows MORE THAN you and me and everyone else here.
I don't care if what he says publicly doesn't match up to what is going on privately. I expect some of that from any and all GM's. That comes with the job.
As for Thomas and his injury, what you don't know is how it's coming along. You don't know what the trainers and medical people are telling Grigson. You don't know if they're saying he'll be fine for training camp. Or, he may not be and can't be counted on. You don't know.
But Grigson does.
And boy, that seems to drive you nuts!
Your posts are getting crazier and crazier.....
As for Lance Louis and LEGIT insurance.... I guess it hasn't occurred to you that all the crappy lineman that used to play for the Colts and no longer do, have all been picked up by other teams. That's the modern NFL.... there simply aren't enough quality lineman for 5 starters and 3-4 back-ups for all 32 teams.
There are weak back-ups on every team in the NFL. That's the way it goes. So, your outrage over having Lance Louis just shows -- again -- how much you don't know, and how much it bothers you that Grigson doesn't see things your way.
You've made this personal. Like I said, this is getting embarrassing. You'd think the guy's record as a GM was 12-23 and not 23-12.
Poor you..... It's. Just. Not. Good. Enough. And it never will be.
If the Colts win a Super bowl, you'll be the guy posting here we should have won more. And if we win more, it still won't be enough. You'll find SOMETHING to complain about. Guys like you always do.
Good luck.
"You're one of those guys" that needs confirmation to breathe
-
Are you serious? You're going to use this to bag on Grigson? Like he should have known all along?
This is getting embarrassing. You seriously have issues. People here are only defending him against the know-nothings who think he did something wrong? Sound familiar? Look in a mirror recently?
You sure you're a Colts fan?
Learn to read, first of all. Where did I blame his retirement on Grigson? I didn't. What I said is, that the signing was a waste even before he retired. But now he's back at square one because Holmes backup plan is already bowing out. There is egg on his face. He had no control over it, but there is egg on his face. Costa was his main move on the offensive line in free agency to this point. How is there NOT egg on his face, especially considering the uncertainty already surrounding the offensive line? It's not a headliner type blunder, but I'm sure he isn't happy he wasted time signing a worthless player who never played any snaps for us
Colts Use 5th year option on Castonzo
in Colts Football
Posted
Yeah, you're definitely overselling his upper body strength "issues", for the sake of your argument, i'm assuming. If Mike McGlynn was asked to be our power guard for 2 years (and kept his job), I'm fairly certain Costanzo could be a decent pull guard in any scheme. I'd actually argue that more upper body strength is required at times out of a tackle than a guard. Guards have more opportunities to double team, and they're not on islands against way more athletic 250-280 lb ends and linebackers with a full head of steam trying to bullrush or run by them like tackles are. His abilities would only be magnified in a zone scheme at guard, I feel.
And that was only one example, and it happened to Costanzo (not that exact scenario, but being beat in general) more often than it should from a decent left tackle. That is not up for debate, in my opinion. The film speaks for itself. Yes, only 4 sacks surrendered, but with plenty of hurries and hits to go along with them. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect noticeable improvement out of him as a pass blocker. He is still very inconsistent in that area of his game