Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

How Is Anthony Costanzo Playing?


oldunclemark

Recommended Posts

So of those "better" run franchises you listed in your little rant there only one has been to more Super Bowls than Peyton Manning since he came into the league and that's the Steelers.

Also those other teams you listed if they had a 100 million dollar QB like the Colts do wouldn't have all those other players they have. Yes they would have some but they would lose some due to the sallary cap. It wouldn't be like you would just take Manning and his contract and put him in Baltimore they would have to give up some good players to make him fit. That's why we pay Peyton Manning as much as we do he's good enough to make up for not having all-pros at every poistion.

The Colts are a solid team built AROUND Manning. That's the key. It's built around him and when you take him out the whole thing crumbles because he's the support peace that holds the whole thing together. That's why for years people have said Peyton Manning is the one guy the Colts couldn't afford to lose. It's the samething in New Orleans, San Diego, the Giantsm New England (the way they are built now not three or four years ago) and probably even Green Bay. It's what comes with having one of the truly elite QBs in the NFL. You pay them so much money they have to be good enough to cover up holes at other poistions because you just simply don't have money and normally if you one of the truly great ones that's good enough. Yet if you lose that peace you are in big big big trouble as we have seen this season because now not only do have this monster hole at the QB spot but you have now have these other holes you could live with because you had an all world QB you can no longer live with.

“Better run” is open to debate. Are the Patriots a better run franchise than the Colts, for instance? They have a Super Star, highly paid QB (like Manning) and have been to 4 SBs (winning 3) during the Manning era. By most objective accounts they have been one of the most successful franchises in the NFL. Same with the Steelers in terms of elite QB and a SB win. .

Whose fault is it that the Colts spent 100 million dollar on the QB at the expense of the rest of their roster? Perhaps we would have had a better, more talented overall team if we spent money on the other positions on the team. Don’t forget even with Manning we only went to two Super Bowls. The lack of investing in quality complimentary starters manifested itself in our playoff losses with a number of one and done and losses despite having high seeds and home games. In the playoffs all your strengths and weaknesses are laid bare and we clearly did not measure up to the other playoff teams in terms of overall team talent. That is one of the reasons a team like the Chargers beat us so consistently in the playoffs. They have better overall team talent that trumps ours. Peyton Manning is a great QB, but he is good enough by himself (heck, no one is) to make up for not having good enough players at other positions?

You just made the argument for why the Colts, as they are built today, will always come up short when it comes to deep runs in the playoffs and why we have little to no chance to consistently go the Super Bowl – “The Colts are a solid team built AROUND Manning. That's the key. It's built around him and when you take him out the whole thing crumbles because he's the support peace that holds the whole thing together.” Most people who follow the NFL would agree that it is irresponsible to say the least to build your team around one player and then have no contingency plan if that player is injured. No player should be that valuable or irreplaceable. A lesson to be learned here is don’t break the salary cap bank to pay a single player at the expense of hurting the overall team. You can look at the Patriots, Steelers, Giants and Packers as elite, Super Bowl winning teams with elite QBs who have managed to pay their QBs yet have quality starters at the other positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

“Better run” is open to debate. Are the Patriots a better run franchise than the Colts, for instance? They have a Super Star, highly paid QB (like Manning) and have been to 4 SBs (winning 3) during the Manning era. By most objective accounts they have been one of the most successful franchises in the NFL. Same with the Steelers in terms of elite QB and a SB win. .

Whose fault is it that the Colts spent 100 million dollar on the QB at the expense of the rest of their roster? Perhaps we would have had a better, more talented overall team if we spent money on the other positions on the team. Don’t forget even with Manning we only went to two Super Bowls. The lack of investing in quality complimentary starters manifested itself in our playoff losses with a number of one and done and losses despite having high seeds and home games. In the playoffs all your strengths and weaknesses are laid bare and we clearly did not measure up to the other playoff teams in terms of overall team talent. That is one of the reasons a team like the Chargers beat us so consistently in the playoffs. They have better overall team talent that trumps ours. Peyton Manning is a great QB, but he is good enough by himself (heck, no one is) to make up for not having good enough players at other positions?

You just made the argument for why the Colts, as they are built today, will always come up short when it comes to deep runs in the playoffs and why we have little to no chance to consistently go the Super Bowl – “The Colts are a solid team built AROUND Manning. That's the key. It's built around him and when you take him out the whole thing crumbles because he's the support peace that holds the whole thing together.” Most people who follow the NFL would agree that it is irresponsible to say the least to build your team around one player and then have no contingency plan if that player is injured. No player should be that valuable or irreplaceable. A lesson to be learned here is don’t break the salary cap bank to pay a single player at the expense of hurting the overall team. You can look at the Patriots, Steelers, Giants and Packers as elite, Super Bowl winning teams with elite QBs who have managed to pay their QBs yet have quality starters at the other positions.

Glad someone else see's it similar to me..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he is, but diem is gone next year and im not sure we are resigning pollack. RG is a higher need IMO just because we dont have a RG

It wouldn't be the end of the world if the Colts got Kalil, either from a trade down or because Luck was gone and Manning is healthy! Quality offensive lineman are important, Kalil is a blue chip talent at LT, that would allow Castonzo to paly RT, and Ijalana could be the project guard, scouts saw him as. He is one of those potential to be anywhere on the line type, and the Colts can select another Guard later in the draft. I agree guard is a need, and it seems more than tackle, im with you,....but if you can get Kalil, that just gives Manning even more protection and just solidifies the bookends of the offensive line for years to come!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be the end of the world if the Colts got Kalil, either from a trade down or because Luck was gone and Manning is healthy! Quality offensive lineman are important, Kalil is a blue chip talent at LT, that would allow Castonzo to paly RT, and Ijalana could be the project guard, scouts saw him as. He is one of those potential to be anywhere on the line type, and the Colts can select another Guard later in the draft. I agree guard is a need, and it seems more than tackle, im with you,....but if you can get Kalil, that just gives Manning even more protection and just solidifies the bookends of the offensive line for years to come!

im not that opposed to getting kalil, for all ive read he seems like a jake long type of LT which would be ridiculous to have. Im not just sure that Ijalana would be a better G than a T, what if he plays out much better T than G? would we move castonzo to G in that case I just dont see castonzo as a G he doesnt have the power to IMO.

forget about Ijalan being a good G, lets just play he is a real good G...but what if he is an even better T, wouldnt it be better to have him at T?

I'm all for having a fantastic OL, but thinking about it if we are going to spend on O (and I much rather go CT or DT, but i dont see a dt worthy of a top 5 pick) i rather go WR with malcolm floyd or the other kid who i forgot his name. We have no game changer, home run threat on O. we have route running and intermediate but not big play except for some occasional garcon stuff. I rather get a great WR.

but as i said, i dont see kalil as a bad option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be the end of the world if the Colts got Kalil, either from a trade down or because Luck was gone and Manning is healthy! Quality offensive lineman are important, Kalil is a blue chip talent at LT, that would allow Castonzo to paly RT, and Ijalana could be the project guard, scouts saw him as. He is one of those potential to be anywhere on the line type, and the Colts can select another Guard later in the draft. I agree guard is a need, and it seems more than tackle, im with you,....but if you can get Kalil, that just gives Manning even more protection and just solidifies the bookends of the offensive line for years to come!

I agree with everything you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... forget about Ijalan being a good G, lets just play he is a real good G...but what if he is an even better T, wouldnt it be better to have him at T?

If Kalil would prove to be significantly better than both Castonzo and Ijilana at OT and if Ijilana can be coached into becoming better than any or our current OGs at OG, then the drafting Kalil and converting Ijilana to OG would make the Colts' OL more effective, if not dominating. If hte preceding is true, then it would be better to have him at OG, imho, even though he might be a better OT than OG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for nothing, many statistical analyses (go to 18to88 or Football Outsiders) show that offensive line play is overrated in the modern NFL. Teams no longer need a dominant OL to be successful in a pass-first league. I mean, the Steelers, Packers, NE at some points, etc. all have mediocre OL. QBs are just as, if not more, responsible for sacks than the OL. Again, this is research, not just me spouting off.

Point is...if we did trade down or do not have the #1 pick Blackmon or the DB from LSU would have a much larger impact on this team than another OT. This isn't 1960 where you want 3 yards and a cloud of dust which is spurred by the best OL in the league. It's 2011 where excellent QB play dominates on a weekly basis. The OL as a unit is teetering behind the WR corp as the second most important position on offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for nothing, many statistical analyses (go to 18to88 or Football Outsiders) show that offensive line play is overrated in the modern NFL. Teams no longer need a dominant OL to be successful in a pass-first league. I mean, the Steelers, Packers, NE at some points, etc. all have mediocre OL. QBs are just as, if not more, responsible for sacks than the OL. Again, this is research, not just me spouting off. Point is...if we did trade down or do not have the #1 pick Blackmon or the DB from LSU would have a much larger impact on this team than another OT. This isn't 1960 where you want 3 yards and a cloud of dust which is spurred by the best OL in the league. It's 2011 where excellent QB play dominates on a weekly basis. The OL as a unit is teetering behind the WR corp as the second most important position on offense.

while i agree with the point, i dont think NE has a bad OL. i think they are pretty good and next year wtih nate solder and the kid they drafted who had cancer they will have a dominant OL.

but yea i rather get blackmon or malcom floyd or claiborne/kirckpatrick than Kalil. however i do see the benneffits with having kalil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while i agree with the point, i dont think NE has a bad OL. i think they are pretty good and next year wtih nate solder and the kid they drafted who had cancer they will have a dominant OL.

but yea i rather get blackmon or malcom floyd or claiborne/kirckpatrick than Kalil. however i do see the benneffits with having kalil

Oh, I see the benefit to Kalil as well. However, more bang for the buck rests in other positions, particularly considering that the Colts just drafted two OTs last year. If we were to draft him, I think it's a waste of a top 10 pick considering the needs in other areas of the team and the diminishing impact of OL play. At this point, top tier OL play does not produce substantially more wins than mediocre OL, which I think the Colts has been this year for the first time in a few seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are so far off it's not even funny. Patriots still went 11-5 without Brady, GreenBay would be 10-6 with Flynn, The Giants would win 5 games, New Orleans maybe 5, San Diego maybe 3, didn't their back-up beat our Colts in the playoffs? The Colts have one win, at most can win 3 this season, thats pathetic. The Colts are not a solid built team around Manning by any stretch of the imagination. So mister Luck bandwagon, how will Luck rectify this team when Manning is done? Its still going to be the same sorry built soft team.

This is absolutely false. They have a mediocre at best OL and running game and a defense that gets constantly gashed through the air. They would be anywhere from 5-11 to 8-8 without Rodgers...you saw what happened yesterday when he was off a little. They got beat by the Chiefs. GB has been dominant this year because Rodgers has been unstoppable, not because they are one of the best all around teams in the league. Yes, GB without Rodgers would be better than the Indy without PM, but don't try to act like GB would be a contender. They would be a middling NFL team searching for a franchise QB...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for nothing, many statistical analyses (go to 18to88 or Football Outsiders) show that offensive line play is overrated in the modern NFL. Teams no longer need a dominant OL to be successful in a pass-first league. I mean, the Steelers, Packers, NE at some points, etc. all have mediocre OL. QBs are just as, if not more, responsible for sacks than the OL. Again, this is research, not just me spouting off.

Point is...if we did trade down or do not have the #1 pick Blackmon or the DB from LSU would have a much larger impact on this team than another OT. This isn't 1960 where you want 3 yards and a cloud of dust which is spurred by the best OL in the league. It's 2011 where excellent QB play dominates on a weekly basis. The OL as a unit is teetering behind the WR corp as the second most important position on offense.

I would only trade down and select Kalil, because he is one of the highest rated prospects to come out of college! Lets say the Colts traded down or even had the second or third pick in the draft, I see Kalil being gone anyway. Both the Rams and Vikings need offensive line help, and both have young QB's.. so unless one of them had their qb in a package deal, I see them selecting Kalil. In that case if the Colts are 3-9 range, I would agree the most important impact player should be selected... it depends what pick number.. at three I would take Blackmon, around 4-7 Claiborne, 7-9 if Claiborne is gone I would take Trent Richardson or consider someone else, Coples, Reiff, Brown...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely false. They have a mediocre at best OL and running game and a defense that gets constantly gashed through the air. They would be anywhere from 5-11 to 8-8 without Rodgers...you saw what happened yesterday when he was off a little. They got beat by the Chiefs. GB has been dominant this year because Rodgers has been unstoppable, not because they are one of the best all around teams in the league. Yes, GB without Rodgers would be better than the Indy without PM, but don't try to act like GB would be a contender. They would be a middling NFL team searching for a franchise QB...

Funny, when I posted and said 10-6 I didn't mean anything special by 10-6, I was thinking 10-6 was a mediocre team, I certainly didn't mean playoff caliber good team! Still better than the Colts, so maybe not so ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back on track, Costanzo looked great against the Titans. And I think Jaric hit the nail on the head when he said the biggest issue in the Baltimore game was the fact that we had our rookie OT on an Island against Suggs. I have been fairly pleased with Metzalars coaching this year, and I don't know he is to blame or Christenson ( or, for that matter, Orlovsky) but, that is inexcusable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I get the Addison comparisons a bit with body type but maybe Steve Smith feels coaching can teach someone to run routes even as a burner. I compare Troy Franklin to a taller DJax that folks had to give a cushion due to speed thus allowing comeback routes and the occasional double move or if it’s single safety high, a possible post move based on where the safety is.   Legette, he has only 1 year of production vs Metcalf in college, that’s the comparison that I don’t agree with. But Franklin is definitely worth the upside at No.46, no doubt    I see Adonai Mitchell catching style like MVS. If it hits you in the numbers, you are a body catcher and will bring it down but if your catch radius is tested a bit more and it’s not a perfect ball in stride like Mahomes threw sometimes, you’re not going to come down with it.    
    • Perhaps I should’ve been more clear.     When I say there was no negative reaction back then, I’m not talking about the fan base.  I’m talking about the media that covers the NFL — people in the know.     Rare is the time I care about what fans think.   I just don’t.   Fans are not informed enough.  But media-wise, I don’t recall any media reaction expressing shock or surprise that Chicago took Trubisky over the other two.     NOTE:  please see my post to 2006CBE about my view of Trubisky.  I was not a big fan of his, but I also wasn’t a hater.   So I’m not defending him. 
    • To be clear….   I was NOT a Trubisky fan.  He only started one season for North Carolina.  I think he only started 13 games (like AR).   His one year was very good, but still he had so little experience.      But I don’t remember any outrage over Chicago taking Trubisky over Watson or Mahomes.    Maybe there was and I’m misremembering.     FWIW:  There are video’s on YouTube about how much KC LOVED Mahomes.  But they didn’t want to trade up to 2.  So they hoped he’d fall to 10, which he did, and KC traded two 1’s and a 3 to move up and take him.     KC thought Mahomes was not only the best QB in that class, they thought he was one of the best QB prospects they’d ever seen.  Their view was Texas Tech had a terrible defense and so Mahomes played every game knowing he had to score a minimum OF 35 points to win, and in some cases 45-50 points.  KC thought he was brilliant.   Props to them, they got it right.     Now, I should look for videos about the Bears drafting Trubisky.  Try to gage reaction back in 2017 and see what the reaction was in real time.  Interesting stuff on YouTube. 
    • I didn't either. Thanks for having my back and Watson was very good with Houston. He won the Division a few times and was in the MVP running 1 year.
    • There were many who did not believe he would succeed. I know that many of the fans that post on the Vikings site that I follow did not think he would do well. Most thought Watson may be best. One guy was very high on Mahomes. He thought Mahomes would be the best. I don't recall any fan who thought Trubisky would be the best of the three.
  • Members

    • Bravo

      Bravo 1,409

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • lester

      lester 232

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Rolltide_gocolts

      Rolltide_gocolts 202

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Pigskin

      Pigskin 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Gigc

      Gigc 564

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoColts8818

      GoColts8818 16,400

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Restinpeacesweetchloe

      Restinpeacesweetchloe 41,442

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • newb767

      newb767 0

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • KB

      KB 1,000

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtStrong2013

      ColtStrong2013 2,915

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...