Anyone else notice?

[YOUR GM]

That the pass protection in our first preseason game was at it's best on Hasselbeck's scoring drive, when our 2nd string line was playing their 1st string D-line?

 

In my opinion, pass protection looks to still be an issue for the starting line. Even if you eliminate the botched snap cadence from Luck that made Costanzo look bad, he still had a very sub-par day in pass protection, in my opinion. He kept getting beat with swim moves to the inside and was bull rushed into Luck, forcing a couple of hurries. McGlynn was bullrushed quite a bit as well. And I believe Satele and Cherilus whiffed on a couple of blocks. The only starter who looked decent in pass protection was Donal Thomas, IMO

.

[Insert Colts Pun Here]

That the pass protection in our first preseason game was at it's best on Hasselbeck's scoring drive, when our 2nd string line was playing their 1st string D-line?

 

In my opinion, pass protection looks to still be an issue for the starting line. Even if you eliminate the botched snap cadence from Luck that made Costanzo look bad, he still had a very sub-par day in pass protection, in my opinion. He kept getting beat with swim moves to the inside and was bull rushed into Luck, forcing a couple of hurries. McGlynn was bullrushed quite a bit as well. And I believe Satele and Cherilus whiffed on a couple of blocks. The only starter who looked decent in pass protection was Donal Thomas, IMO

.

 

Any idea if Thornton or Holmes will play on Sunday? I'm not sure of the status of either.

 

If they're both active, i'd like to see Castonzo, Thomas, Holmes, Thorton, Cherilus. 

[Smonroe]

Any idea if Thornton or Holmes will play on Sunday? I'm not sure of the status of either.

 

If they're both active, i'd like to see Castonzo, Thomas, Holmes, Thorton, Cherilus.

Thorton hasn't practiced yet, as far as I know.

[Smonroe]

That the pass protection in our first preseason game was at it's best on Hasselbeck's scoring drive, when our 2nd string line was playing their 1st string D-line?

 

In my opinion, pass protection looks to still be an issue for the starting line. Even if you eliminate the botched snap cadence from Luck that made Costanzo look bad, he still had a very sub-par day in pass protection, in my opinion. He kept getting beat with swim moves to the inside and was bull rushed into Luck, forcing a couple of hurries. McGlynn was bullrushed quite a bit as well. And I believe Satele and Cherilus whiffed on a couple of blocks. The only starter who looked decent in pass protection was Donal Thomas, IMO

.

PFF rated AC, Thomas and. GC positive grades.

[Insert Colts Pun Here]

Thorton hasn't practiced yet, as far as I know.

 

That's a shame. Just found out that Holmes is injured also. I was really hoping to see them get some game time.

[jskinnz]

That the pass protection in our first preseason game was at it's best on Hasselbeck's scoring drive, when our 2nd string line was playing their 1st string D-line?

 

In my opinion, pass protection looks to still be an issue for the starting line. Even if you eliminate the botched snap cadence from Luck that made Costanzo look bad, he still had a very sub-par day in pass protection, in my opinion. He kept getting beat with swim moves to the inside and was bull rushed into Luck, forcing a couple of hurries. McGlynn was bullrushed quite a bit as well. And I believe Satele and Cherilus whiffed on a couple of blocks. The only starter who looked decent in pass protection was Donal Thomas, IMO

.

 

Dear God...

 

Perhaps it might be prudent to at least see the a half of football from everyone together before determining that protection is still an issue.  And even then that is too soon to tell anything definitive.

[Smonroe]

Dear God...

 

Perhaps it might be prudent to at least see the a half of football from everyone together before determining that protection is still an issue.  And even then that is too soon to tell anything definitive.

Are you kidding? Some mor... Person started a thread condemning both the O and D lines before the game was over.

I thought the OP stated his opinion pretty well. I don't necessarily agree -yet.

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

People need to remember that an o-line takes time to gel.  We have 2 new starters, and Satele missed time last year.  I want Holmes and Thornton to get in there as much as anyone, but we have to remember continuity is one of the most important aspects of an offensive line.  Grigson has said he doesn't love throwing rookie lineman out there, so I fully expect Satele and McGlynn to start.  Things may change as the season progresses, but before you freak out about the line, just remember we got better as last year went on, and that was with Joe Reitz and Winston Justice.  

[YOUR GM]

PFF rated AC, Thomas and. GC positive grades.

GC only had one negative play (that I saw) so I'll buy that one. AC would've been beat quite a bit, however, if the passes weren't already designed to come out of Luck's hand quick. I wasn't impressed

And people need to understand that the issues I'm bringing up are from a purely talent standpoint. I'm not talking about miscommunications or blown assignments that usually come with acclimating new starters on a line. I'm talking about players just getting beat, one-on-one because they either lack the strength, technique or agility required to match up against the man across from them. No amount of team gel time can fix the fact that McGlynn is one of the weaker (literally) linemen in the league who regularly gets pushed back into the pocket.

AC still struggles with engaging the block with his hands and speed rushers in general. Jerry Hughes had him beat a couple of times to my recollection. That's not a good sign

[ColtStrong]

Chillax.

[YOUR GM]

Chillax.

I love how it's automatically assumed someone is panicking when they simply voice their observations. I'm not saying it's definitely going to continue to be a problem going forward, but Sunday wasn't a good showing by the starters, in my opinion

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

GC only had one negative play (that I saw) so I'll buy that one. AC would've been beat quite a bit, however, if the passes weren't already designed to come out of Luck's hand quick. I wasn't impressed

And people need to understand that the issues I'm bringing up are from a purely talent standpoint. I'm not talking about miscommunications or blown assignments that usually come with acclimating new starters on a line. I'm talking about players just getting beat, one-on-one because they either lack the strength, technique or agility required to match up against the man across from them. No amount of team gel time can fix the fact that McGlynn is one of the weaker (literally) linemen in the league who regularly gets pushed back into the pocket.

AC still struggles with engaging the block with his hands and speed rushers in general. Jerry Hughes had him beat a couple of times to my recollection. That's not a good sign

I agree with you...my point is just that , as much as this hurts to say, Satele and McGlynn are still our  best bet right this minute.  But things could change by season start.  Thornton and Holmes getting healthy will be required obviously.

[Tark The Shark]

I'll wait til the regular season starts, then I will pass judgement.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

Grigson has said he doesn't love throwing rookie lineman out there, so I fully expect Satele and McGlynn to start.

No he didn't. ;/

[YOUR GM]

I agree with you...my point is just that , as much as this hurts to say, Satele and McGlynn are still our best bet right this minute. But things could change by season start. Thornton and Holmes getting healthy will be required obviously.

I actually thought Linkenbach looked better at RG than McGlynn did on Sunday, for what it's worth. Reitz didn't look horrible at LT either. I think I'm just tired of seeing McGlynn start when it's clear as day that there are more talented linemen on our roster right now who are sitting behind him. Confusing and frustrating, to say the least

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

No he didn't. ;/

He didn't exactly say "I don't like rookie lineman to start" but he did hint at it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/47462/grigson-prefers-rookie-cbs-to-rookie-ols

[OffensivelyPC]

GC only had one negative play (that I saw) so I'll buy that one. AC would've been beat quite a bit, however, if the passes weren't already designed to come out of Luck's hand quick. I wasn't impressed

And people need to understand that the issues I'm bringing up are from a purely talent standpoint. I'm not talking about miscommunications or blown assignments that usually come with acclimating new starters on a line. I'm talking about players just getting beat, one-on-one because they either lack the strength, technique or agility required to match up against the man across from them. No amount of team gel time can fix the fact that McGlynn is one of the weaker (literally) linemen in the league who regularly gets pushed back into the pocket.

AC still struggles with engaging the block with his hands and speed rushers in general. Jerry Hughes had him beat a couple of times to my recollection. That's not a good sign

The protections are designed with the type of pass play in mind.  He may have been beat if it was a 5 or 7 step drop or shotgun, but would be perfectly fine in a 3 step drop.  You're not really judging AC fairly when you say, had the pass play been longer, Luck would have been sacked when the play is 3 steps and then throw.

[OffensivelyPC]

The protections are designed with the type of pass play in mind.  He may have been beat if it was a 5 or 7 step drop or shotgun, but would be perfectly fine in a 3 step drop.  You're not really judging AC fairly when you say, had the pass play been longer, Luck would have been sacked when the play is 3 steps and then throw.

And if Luck doesn't get rid of the ball quickly on a 3 step drop and gets sacked, that's either on him or the WRs

[YOUR GM]

The protections are designed with the type of pass play in mind.  He may have been beat if it was a 5 or 7 step drop or shotgun, but would be perfectly fine in a 3 step drop.  You're not really judging AC fairly when you say, had the pass play been longer, Luck would have been sacked when the play is 3 steps and then throw.

 

No, what I'm saying is, it was bad blocking, period. Whether it be 3 step, 5 step, 7 step. The pocket was not clean when he was throwing and just because it went for a completion does not mean he wasn't hurried. 2 of his first 3 throws, he had direct pressure coming right in front of him. Satele whiffed on one and McGlynn (who, to his credit, held his block) was pushed back into Luck, forcing him to slightly step off to the left and throw. It seems you want to give a pardence to an incomplete block, so long as the play was designed for the ball to come out quick. That makes no sense to me because even if he's not sacked, he will get hit eventually, even on the quick stuff. The idea is for him to stay upright all together, not just to not get sacked

[OffensivelyPC]

No, what I'm saying is, it was bad blocking, period. Whether it be 3 step, 5 step, 7 step. The pocket was not clean when he was throwing and just because it went for a completion does not mean he wasn't hurried. 2 of his first 3 throws, he had direct pressure coming right in front of him. Satele whiffed on one and McGlynn (who, to his credit, held his block) was pushed back into Luck, forcing him to slightly step off to the left and throw. It seems you want to give a pardence to an incomplete block, so long as the play was designed for the ball to come out quick. That makes no sense to me because even if he's not sacked, he will get hit eventually, even on the quick stuff. The idea is for him to stay upright all together, not just to not get sacked

I was talking about Castonzo.  Much of your original post was regarding AC and my response was primarily directed at this quote "AC would've been beat quite a bit, however, if the passes weren't already designed to come out of Luck's hand quick. I wasn't impressed"

 

I'm saying this isn't a fair assessment, because it's not.  When the throw is designed to come out quickly, the LTs job is to make sure that the DE (or OLB depending on the defense or blitz) doesn't get an inside release straight to the QB and/or keep the DE off balance so he can't jump up and swat the ball down.  And the only time that happened (and it wasn't even an inside release), Luck has assured us all that it wasn't Castonzo's fault.  And out of all of Luck's other passing plays, Castonzo was solid. 

[Superman]

He didn't exactly say "I don't like rookie lineman to start" but he did hint at it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/47462/grigson-prefers-rookie-cbs-to-rookie-ols

A lot was read into that quote by Grigson, unnecessarily so. It was a "would you rather" question. Doesn't mean he doesn't want rookie linemen to play, just that he thinks it's easier for a rookie cornerback.

And in his answer, he specifically referred to rookie tackles, not just linemen. He might feel differently about an interior lineman. Either way, people inferred a lot from his statement, and I think they did so in error.

JMO

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

A lot was read into that quote by Grigson, unnecessarily so. It was a "would you rather" question. Doesn't mean he doesn't want rookie linemen to play, just that he thinks it's easier for a rookie cornerback.

And in his answer, he specifically referred to rookie tackles, not just linemen. He might feel differently about an interior lineman. Either way, people inferred a lot from his statement, and I think they did so in error.

JMO

You're probably right.  I think I took what he said a little too literally, mainly because in my personal opinion, unless you are a top 10 pick, you shouldn't start right away as a rookie offensive lineman.  It's obviously a case by case basis, but in general I would prefer young o-lineman to get spot work their first year before getting thrown into the fire so to speak.

[YOUR GM]

I was talking about Castonzo.  Much of your original post was regarding AC and my response was primarily directed at this quote "AC would've been beat quite a bit, however, if the passes weren't already designed to come out of Luck's hand quick. I wasn't impressed"

 

I'm saying this isn't a fair assessment, because it's not.  When the throw is designed to come out quickly, the LTs job is to make sure that the DE (or OLB depending on the defense or blitz) doesn't get an inside release straight to the QB and/or keep the DE off balance so he can't jump up and swat the ball down.  And the only time that happened (and it wasn't even an inside release), Luck has assured us all that it wasn't Castonzo's fault.  And out of all of Luck's other passing plays, Castonzo was solid. 

 

 

Here's the play I'm talking about where Hughes beat him

 

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/1869-untitled/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/1870-untitled2/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/1871-untitled3/

 

Costanzo was fortunate that one, Luck got the ball off quick and two, that he wasn't called for holding, as that was the only thing that kept Luck from getting hit on that play

[OffensivelyPC]

Yeah, he was fortunate there was a no holding penalty.  But let's face it, there's holding on virtually every play of any football game.  Doesn't excuse it, but it doesn't make much of a difference.

 

I dunno, I guess I'm just not seeing it.  Maybe our definition of "beat" is just not the same.  I see an LT who prevented his guy from touching the QB, a DE going to the ground with the ball already halfway to the WR.  For as long as Luck was upright, he didn't have to move in the pocket whatsoever.  He had at least 3 seconds to get the ball off given that the timer is a 7:57 and Luck already has the ball in his hands making reads.  That's PLENTY of time in a west coast.  Would it be nicer if the DE was 5 yards away from Luck?  Sure, but the bottom line is, the LT kept the DE from even making the QB move, let alone getting a hit on him.  Maybe that's where we differ, because I think the LT gets beat if he is able to get into throwing lanes, gets a hit on the QB, or at least obstructs his throwing motion.  Just because the protection could be better doesn't mean he got beat.

[YOUR GM]

Yeah, he was fortunate there was a no holding penalty.  But let's face it, there's holding on virtually every play of any football game.  Doesn't excuse it, but it doesn't make much of a difference.

 

I dunno, I guess I'm just not seeing it.  Maybe our definition of "beat" is just not the same.  I see an LT who prevented his guy from touching the QB, a DE going to the ground with the ball already halfway to the WR.  For as long as Luck was upright, he didn't have to move in the pocket whatsoever.  He had at least 3 seconds to get the ball off given that the timer is a 7:57 and Luck already has the ball in his hands making reads.  That's PLENTY of time in a west coast.  Would it be nicer if the DE was 5 yards away from Luck?  Sure, but the bottom line is, the LT kept the DE from even making the QB move, let alone getting a hit on him.  Maybe that's where we differ, because I think the LT gets beat if he is able to get into throwing lanes, gets a hit on the QB, or at least obstructs his throwing motion.  Just because the protection could be better doesn't mean he got beat.

 

Actually go watch the play again, and stop just trying to paint your own picture from the screen shots I provided. Anyone who saw the play in question could vouch for me that the protection wasn't pretty on Costanzo's end, and Luck was rushed on the pass (which was an incompletion.) He actually only held the ball for 2 seconds before Hughes was in his face. The pass was intended for Reggie, who appeared to be running an out route, but only got to the point in his route where he was just turning around before Luck was rushed to throw it. If Hughes didn't flash in front of Luck, it could've been a completion

[OffensivelyPC]

I'm the one painting pictures?  Dude, you just basically said that if the play were different, Castanzo would hvae been beat.  *  If the play were different, the protection and everythign else would have been different.  But I don't know how you think the QB not being touched on a play equals bad protection.  If that's your analysis, remind me next time to take your opinion with a grain of salt because if you were a Colts fan last year, this is an improvement.  And he wouldn't have been touched at all this last Sunday if Luck hadn't had the "cadence mishap."  You aren't going to win all your battles plain and simple and some are going to be uglier than others.  But you are being unreasonable and difficult to take seriously when you say, "if this were a different play, and he would be beat alot." 

Edited August 17, 2013 by Nadine
inappropriate

[YOUR GM]

I'm the one painting pictures?  Dude, you just basically said that if the play were different, Castanzo would hvae been beat. .  If the play were different, the protection and everythign else would have been different.  But I don't know how you think the QB not being touched on a play equals bad protection.  If that's your analysis, remind me next time to take your opinion with a grain of salt because if you were a Colts fan last year, this is an improvement.  And he wouldn't have been touched at all this last Sunday if Luck hadn't had the "cadence mishap."  You aren't going to win all your battles plain and simple and some are going to be uglier than others.  But you are being unreasonable and difficult to take seriously when you say, "if this were a different play, and he would be beat alot." 

 

You didn't watch the play, in other words

Edited August 17, 2013 by Nadine

[OffensivelyPC]

, i did. You just clearly have no idea how to analyze a football play except by conjecture.

[YOUR GM]

, i did. You just clearly have no idea how to analyze a football play except by conjecture.

 

 

Give me a break. You're over here looking at the play clock from the screen cap, trying to argue that he had 3 seconds to throw the ball on the play. That tells me you didn't go back and look at all. 

 

And that play wasn't even a designed quick throw. Like I said, he was hurried and threw it before Wayne was in position and ready to catch it. You said, outside of the botched snap play, Costanzo had a flawless day, and I just gave you an example in which he was beat, and as a result, the QB was hurried. 

 

I'm done talking about it if you're not even willing to go back and look at the play. All you're trying to do is win an argument

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

Give me a break. You're over here looking at the play clock from the screen cap, trying to argue that he had 3 seconds to throw the ball on the play. That tells me you didn't go back and look at all. 

 

And that play wasn't even a designed quick throw. Like I said, he was hurried and threw it before Wayne was in position and ready to catch it. You said, outside of the botched snap play, Costanzo had a flawless day, and I just gave you an example in which he was beat, and as a result, the QB was hurried. 

 

I'm done talking about it if you're not even willing to go back and look at the play. All you're trying to do is win an argument

I have to agree with HireBA on this on...Castonzo lost inside leverage, and clearly held Hughes to prevent the sack.  A Tackle absolutely can not get beat to the inside, if all else fails you have to swing him outside and hope your qb steps up in the pocket.  Even if you tell me Hughes would not have gotten to Luck without the hold , he still is a threat to impede Luck's follow through on his throw, and Luck would have been hit anyway.  I don't care how many sacks Luck takes, I care how many times our franchise quaterback gets hit.  Castonzo was lucky on that play.

[PrincetonTiger]

AC and the other 1st teamers did a fine job Sunday.

[OffensivelyPC]

Give me a break. You're over here looking at the play clock from the screen cap, trying to argue that he had 3 seconds to throw the ball on the play. That tells me you didn't go back and look at all. 

 

And that play wasn't even a designed quick throw. Like I said, he was hurried and threw it before Wayne was in position and ready to catch it. You said, outside of the botched snap play, Costanzo had a flawless day, and I just gave you an example in which he was beat, and as a result, the QB was hurried. 

 

I'm done talking about it if you're not even willing to go back and look at the play. All you're trying to do is win an argument

It's not about winning the argument, it's about you arguing about what would happen on a different play that never occurred.  You want to limit it to this one play fine.  Even if he did get beat, there is still no basis for you say that this would happen the same way on a different play, with different protection.  That is and has been the point of my argument all along.  Yeah, the guy got an inside release on him, and as I said before, he's supposed to prevent that from occurring.  So, as I always have, I acknowledged that protection wasn't pretty, but he still kept him from hitting the QB, so I don't think he got beat.  You say he got beat, fine.  Whatever.

 

The bottom line is, what shoulda coulda woulda happened on a play that never occurred is an unfair judgment, which was the point of my first reply to you.

 

And another thing, I am talking the play with you.  I have watched the play.  Just because you think you're right and I'm wrong doesn't mean I didn't watch anything.  And I still don't know how you say it was not designed to be a short pass given that 3 out of 5 guys ran quick routs.

[OffensivelyPC]

I have to agree with HireBA on this on...Castonzo lost inside leverage, and clearly held Hughes to prevent the sack.  A Tackle absolutely can not get beat to the inside, if all else fails you have to swing him outside and hope your qb steps up in the pocket.  Even if you tell me Hughes would not have gotten to Luck without the hold , he still is a threat to impede Luck's follow through on his throw, and Luck would have been hit anyway.  I don't care how many sacks Luck takes, I care how many times our franchise quaterback gets hit.  Castonzo was lucky on that play.

And I can acknowledge that protection wasn't great.  I dispute his original statement that he would have been beaten on other plays had they not been designed to throw quickly.

[YOUR GM]

It's not about winning the argument, it's about you arguing about what would happen on a different play that never occurred.  You want to limit it to this one play fine.  Even if he did get beat, there is still no basis for you say that this would happen the same way on a different play, with different protection.  That is and has been the point of my argument all along.  Yeah, the guy got an inside release on him, and as I said before, he's supposed to prevent that from occurring.  So, as I always have, I acknowledged that protection wasn't pretty, but he still kept him from hitting the QB, so I don't think he got beat.  You say he got beat, fine.  Whatever.

 

The bottom line is, what shoulda coulda woulda happened on a play that never occurred is an unfair judgment, which was the point of my first reply to you.

 

And another thing, I am talking the play with you.  I have watched the play.  Just because you think you're right and I'm wrong doesn't mean I didn't watch anything.  And I still don't know how you say it was not designed to be a short pass given that 3 out of 5 guys ran quick routs.

 

You're putting words in my mouth now. I never said any of that. All I said was I wasn't impressed with the pass protection on Sunday. Costanzo was beat a couple of times, in my opinion, and it resulted in hurries. You seem to be of the opinion that if the quarterback isn't touched or sacked, then the pressure had no effect on the play whatsoever. Anyone who follows or plays football knows that's not the case. That's my only point. If you feel Costanzo was without flaw on Sunday, that's your prerogitive to do so. I feel the opposite. Let's leave it at that, because at this point, it's pointless to carry on any further

[OffensivelyPC]

Look dude, this is stupid.  I'll just apologize and walk away.  We're both Colts fans here, no reason to be hostile, and I'm partly responsible.  Don't mean to be, just took offense because at some point you were getting all condescending and I can overreact when I perceive people to be condescending.  Call it a pet peeve.  Again, apologies.

[YOUR GM]

Look dude, this is stupid.  I'll just apologize and walk away.  We're both Colts fans here, no reason to be hostile, and I'm partly responsible.  Don't mean to be, just took offense because at some point you were getting all condescending and I can overreact when I perceive people to be condescending.  Call it a pet peeve.  Again, apologies.

 

 

We're cool. I don't want to argue. I apologize that I came across that way

[OffensivelyPC]

You're putting words in my mouth now. I never said any of that. All I said was I wasn't impressed with the pass protection on Sunday. Costanzo was beat a couple of times, in my opinion, and it resulted in hurries. You seem to be of the opinion that if the quarterback isn't touched or sacked, then the pressure had no effect on the play whatsoever. Anyone who follows or plays football knows that's not the case. That's my only point. If you feel Costanzo was without flaw on Sunday, that's your prerogitive to do so. I feel the opposite. Let's leave it at that, because at this point, it's pointless to carry on any further

IF for no other reason, it's the freakin pre-season.  If we're gonna argue over something, lets at least make it a game that matters. lol. 

[NewColtsFan]

The play of the offensive line is typically the last thing that comes into place.

 

There is a great deal to OL play that most fans -- me included at times -- just don't understand.  

 

So,  OL play is often going to look sloppy, uneven and inconsistent during the pre-season.    There is no cause to sound the alarm.  At least,  not yet.

 

Let these guys play.....   at least give them the entire pre-season before we proclaim how good they are,  or are not.

 

Just some food for thought...

[a06cc]

We need a new LT

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

We need a new LT

I whole heartedly disagree.