Should we leave Braden Smith at right tackle?

[chad72]

I have heard several arguments presented by several posters, which go like:

 

1. I like Braden Smith's power that he brings, and with an NFL strength regimen, he should make a good guard

2. We like the athleticism he brings to the RT position and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

So, what is the forum consensus? Just thought I'd gauge it with a poll

[Dark Superman]

If someone actually thinks the Colts should move Smith to guard, bench Glowinski, and start some scrub at RT, they should be banned on from this forum.

[Cynjin]

7 minutes ago, Savage21 said:

If someone actually thinks the Colts should move Smith to guard, bench Glowinski, and start some scrub at RT, they should be banned on from this forum.

 

I'm not advocating a change, but I don't believe starting a scrub at RT is the only option.  If they could get a RT that is as good or better than Smith and then move Smith to RG, then I would be fine with it. 

[Superman]

Ehh, there's still a lot of evaluation to be done with Smith, and the OL in general. The Jags game will be a real test up front, on both sides of the ball. 

 

But if Smith holds up at RT for the rest of the year, and Glowinski does the same at RG, then I'm signing a swing lineman for depth, and the draft falls however it falls. 

 

If either of them struggles down the stretch, my strategy changes. But either way, I'm not satisfied with the OL group until I think we're legit two deep at every position. 

[John Waylon]

If we get a shot at a solid RT move him. If he’s better at G we’re better at G. Glowinski is doing alright at G, but let’s not kid ourselves here, he’s not setting the world on fire by any means. There’s plenty of room for improvement there. 

[GoColts00]

I agree with Superman's assessment. When we are legit two deep at every OL position then things change, but until then we need to keep finding the correct personnel in FA & the draft.

[dodsworth]

Just remember when Costanzo was out this line was mediocre.

We need depth at the tackle position.

[BProland85]

If Braden keeps this up at RT, then we don't necessarily need to look at a OT or OG early in the draft. We should focus primarily on defense and WR. I would still like an OT brought in for depth possibly in rounds 3-4. 

 

And Glowinski seems to fit at RG.

[Yoshinator]

This thread is ridiculous. We have the best O-Line that Luck has ever had and someone wants to change it. The odds are that Braden Smith is better at RT than RG. So basically what's being advocated here is to switch Braden Smith from RT to RG and hope he is as good or better at a new position then his old one which he's been elite at (albeit a SSS), and then draft a RT that you have to use an early round pick on and hope he can become better than Braden Smith was at RT and can replace Glowinski in the lineup.

 

I'm all for doing things different from Ballard a lot of the time, but this is the worst idea on the forum I've heard in a long time. This is the thing Ballard has got right the most out of anything.

[NewColtsFan]

56 minutes ago, Superman said:

Ehh, there's still a lot of evaluation to be done with Smith, and the OL in general. The Jags game will be a real test up front, on both sides of the ball. 

 

But if Smith holds up at RT for the rest of the year, and Glowinski does the same at RG, then I'm signing a swing lineman for depth, and the draft falls however it falls. 

 

If either of them struggles down the stretch, my strategy changes. But either way, I'm not satisfied with the OL group until I think we're legit two deep at every position. 

 

Gee.....     I was right with you step by step,  sentence by sentence.....    right up until the very last one.

 

Do you know how many teams feel like they have legitimate two-deep at every position?    I'd guess at roughly zero.    None.    But I suppose I might be off by one.     Finding a team that is satisfied and happy with the 9-10 OL on their roster these days is darn near impossible.    

 

Really.    Seriously.

 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Gee.....     I was right with you step by step,  sentence by sentence.....    right up until the very last one.

 

Do you know how many teams feel like they have legitimate two-deep at every position?    I'd guess at roughly zero.    None.    But I suppose I might be off by one.     Finding a team that is satisfied and happy with the 9-10 OL on their roster these days is darn near impossible.    

 

Really.    Seriously.

 

 

So my point is I don't want them to stop improving the OL until we're legit two deep. Doesn't mean that I expect them to go out and find 5 starting quality backups in one offseason. 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

I have heard several arguments presented by several posters, which go like:

 

1. I like Braden Smith's power that he brings, and with an NFL strength regimen, he should make a good guard

2. We like the athleticism he brings to the RT position and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

So, what is the forum consensus? Just thought I'd gauge it with a poll

I'd like to leave him at RT to be honest. However, I feel that if a starting stud at RT falls into our lap, either via FA/Draft, you pick him up, then have the two of them battle it out for the RT during camp. 

[chad72]

29 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

This thread is ridiculous. We have the best O-Line that Luck has ever had and someone wants to change it. The odds are that Braden Smith is better at RT than RG. So basically what's being advocated here is to switch Braden Smith from RT to RG and hope he is as good or better at a new position then his old one which he's been elite at (albeit a SSS), and then draft a RT that you have to use an early round pick on and hope he can become better than Braden Smith was at RT and can replace Glowinski in the lineup.

 

I'm all for doing things different from Ballard a lot of the time, but this is the worst idea on the forum I've heard in a long time. This is the thing Ballard has got right the most out of anything.

 

Dude, relax. I was asking to gauge forum consensus because believe it or not, there are several posters on here that want things to play out more than being prisoners of the moment. There is nothing ridiculous about my thread, I was re-hashing what has been said back and forth by different posters with different points of view, presenting those as poll options. For what it is worth, I feel we should stand pat with Braden Smith at RT but was wanting to engage others on why they felt different. That is the true purpose of this thread. I am not the "my way or the highway" type of poster, I do welcome differences of opinion, whether I strongly agree with them or not.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Dude, relax. I was asking to gauge forum consensus because believe it or not, there are several posters on here that want things to play out more than being prisoners of the moment. There is nothing ridiculous about my thread, I was re-hashing what has been said back and forth by different posters with different points of view, presenting those as poll options. For what it is worth, I feel we should stand pat with Braden Smith at RT but was wanting to engage others on why they felt different. That is the true purpose of this thread. I am not the "my way or the highway" type of poster, I do welcome differences of opinion, whether I strongly agree with them or not.

Believe me Chad, I know you're a good poster. You are one of the best on this forum, and you know about the draft, which surprised me that you would create this thread after seeing him succeed at RT. I don't think you've ever done anything to actually upset me, this thread was just very strange to me considering how good Braden has been at RT. Carry on.

[MikeCurtis]

To me.... If Smith continues strong play,  you can get the best OG or OT available

 

This line is ONE injured LT from a major problem

 

We have almost no depth at that left LT spot

 

My choice would be to get a tackle that might develop in a starter

 

I think you need to draft an OL player with one top 3 picks EVERY year

 

The OL is THAT important..... (I am learning it this year)

 

 

 

[Mr.Debonair]

 I love what the O-Line is doing but two weeks is a small sample size. We also haven’t played a killers lineup of DL’s. Jacksonville will be coming off their bye and usually give us hell. The next 5 games will say a lot about our guys. Especially Glow and Smith. 

[RollerColt]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So my point is I don't want them to stop improving the OL until we're legit two deep. Doesn't mean that I expect them to go out and find 5 starting quality backups in one offseason. 

I.E. we shouldn't stop searching for players, since you never know what's going to happen. 

[chad72]

19 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I'd like to leave him at RT to be honest. However, I feel that if a starting stud at RT falls into our lap, either via FA/Draft, you pick him up, then have the two of them battle it out for the RT during camp. 

 

However, if that RT falls into your lap in Round 1, do you pull the trigger over a quality DL in a loaded DL class if that RT cannot play LT? I am glad I am not making those decisions. I think there is a compromise to be made if such a situation happens in the draft.

[CR91]

lets say we do move Smith to G. Who plays RT then? Haeg is on IR, Good is dealing with the loss of his brother and imo is no better at RT. Keep him there. Hes not lights out like Nelson, but he gets the job done

[ztboiler]

If he continues to play this well at RT it will be tough to move him regardless of the original vision for him.  He has no physical deficiency which would make it seem like fools gold to keep him there...so I think Ballard will say that this worked out better than he thought and go about using his draft capital accordingly....if he finishes the year in similar fashion.

 

We’ll be able to re-sign Good at near minimum for depth and Clark/Haeg return for their 4th year.  Glowinski can be re-signed reasonably as well...then draft another G/T prospect as fits your board on day 2 or 3 and we’re good to go.  

 

Of course we’ll add another couple of reclamation projects in the off season as always...and may find another serviceable vet like Glowinski.

[PeterBowman]

for right now, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

But if there's a chance to take a stud tackle in the draft, and he's the best player available, you take it.

[rock8591]

Clark at RT.

 

He filled in good when Castonzo was out, at LT.

[ztboiler]

15 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

However, if that RT falls into your lap in Round 1, do you pull the trigger over a quality DL in a loaded DL class if that RT cannot play LT? I am glad I am not making those decisions. I think there is a compromise to be made if such a situation happens in the draft.

The D seemed ahead of schedule to start the year...but we’re seeing the standard holes in the scheme of recent weeks. They are committed to this path...and feels like we’ve got to capitalize and find a 3Tech to have any shot of making it work...

 

Can’t force it but if this is the DL class to do so then I’m for drafting DL early...

[Devildog]

Honestly, I would keep everybody where they're at.  A lot of people on here clamoring to get the line fixed and here we are with the best OL we've had since Luck was drafted. Now people want to upgrade/move players around because they think there's room for improvement? Maybe, maybe not. I'm all for drafting another OT/OG for depth or competition or better yet a replacement for AC, but for now I think we should be happy the line is keeping Luck up and opening holes for the RBs.

[Hoose]

32 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

To me.... If Smith continues strong play,  you can get the best OG or OT available

 

This line is ONE injured LT from a major problem

 

We have almost no depth at that left LT spot

 

My choice would be to get a tackle that might develop in a starter

 

I think you need to draft an OL player with one top 3 picks EVERY year

 

The OL is THAT important..... (I am learning it this year)

 

 

 

Totally  agree with this post. LT is a glaring weakness after AC. I would leave Braden Smith at RT the rest of the season. If he continues his solid play, you keep him there. Why wouldn't you? But next year, look for another OT to develop, ie grab one early. DT, CB, S, WR, OT. All critical positions of need. 

[DougDew]

I think he's 6'6".  At that height, his body type seems more suited to RT than G, and I thought of him as a possible RT when he was drafted.  If he plays well there the rest of the season, we can leave him there and focus on a G in the 2nd or 3rd round this coming draft.

 

I don't know why we'd move him out of T during the season if he's playing well there.

 

I think Glow is best suited for the 1st backup G position.

[braveheartcolt]

Definitely no unforced changes to the line as it currently stands, but we all know linemen drop like flies throughout the duration of the season, and the draft may bring up some interesting opportunities, so I don't think there is a 'right answer' at this time. 

 

Cop out I know. It's not a ridiculous thread as someone has opined, just hard to give a confident response.

[KB]

If he can handle better pass rushers then keep him at RT. He has been doing well there, but hasnt gone against anyone worth noting. Jacksonville's line will be a good indicator of where we really are.

 

If Ballard decides to draft a RT it wouldnt be the end of the world, as long as he is better. Then it's as simple as Smith either beating Glowinski for RG or having a backup that can play RT and RG (presumably) at a high level. Since attrition has been an issue with the line this wouldnt be a bad way to go. The only thing wrong could be if the new RT ends up being a bust.

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

This thread is ridiculous. We have the best O-Line that Luck has ever had and someone wants to change it. The odds are that Braden Smith is better at RT than RG. So basically what's being advocated here is to switch Braden Smith from RT to RG and hope he is as good or better at a new position then his old one which he's been elite at (albeit a SSS), and then draft a RT that you have to use an early round pick on and hope he can become better than Braden Smith was at RT and can replace Glowinski in the lineup.

 

I'm all for doing things different from Ballard a lot of the time, but this is the worst idea on the forum I've heard in a long time. This is the thing Ballard has got right the most out of anything.

Arrogant to think that people who have a different opinion to yours is deemed as ridiculous. Which is what you implied. 

[#12.]

If this line keeps playing as they currently are, why would you change anything?  Remember, they wanted Smith to play tackle in preseason, and could have moved him to guard when Slauson went down, but didn't.  Apparently, they want him at tackle, and for good reason from what I am seeing.

 

That said, you absolutely need better depth at tackle, better depth across the board.

[Yoshinator]

8 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Arrogant to think that people who have a different opinion to yours is deemed as ridiculous. Which is what you implied. 

Someone with the opposite opinion on this subject is admitting that Braden Smith would have to be as good as he is at RT or better for it to be a good move, then Glowinski would turn into a depth piece, and we'd have to draft a RT high to replace the poor RT we have after moving Braden Smith to G. It's a horrible idea when it's spelled out and you see the process we'd have to go through in order to move him, while not knowing if he'd be as good at G than RT. So as long as someone admits that's what they're ok with, then they can have the opposite opinion. I'll take the opinion with Braden Smith producing at an elite level with actual real production and the the O-Line gelling. 

 

Opinions technically can't be wrong, but it doesn't mean one side is much more logical than the other, and on this subject, it holds true.

[Myles]

It all depends on the draft.    So leave him at tackle this season.

If we are in position to draft an O-lineman in the 2019 draft, we can take a guard or a tackle with the knowledge that we can move Smith to guard or leave him at tackle.   Gives us a good option.  

How great was that trade from #3 to #6 this year?    Got Nelson, Smith, Turay and Wilkens out of 1 pick.   And still a second rounder in 2019.  Maybe that will be the pick we use on an O-lineman.

[braveheartcolt]

3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Someone with the opposite opinion on this subject is admitting that Braden Smith would have to be as good as he is at RT or better for it to be a good move, then Glowinski would turn into a depth piece, and we'd have to draft a RT high to replace the poor RT we have after moving Braden Smith to G. It's a horrible idea when it's spelled out and you see the process we'd have to go through in order to move him, while not knowing if he'd be as good at G than RT. So as long as someone admits that's what their ok with, then they can have the opposite opinion. I'll take the opinion with Braden Smith producing at an elite level with actual real production and the the O-Line gelling. 

 

Opinions technically can't be wrong, but it doesn't mean one side is much more logical than the other, and on this subject, it holds true.

There was no timescale put on the question, and many have talked about options during the '19 Draft. 

 

I agree it would seem like a strange idea to move him now. But I would not be so bold to ridicule someone with a different opinion.

 

BTW your last para above kind of contrdicts what you originally posted.

[stitches]

For the time being I want to see how he does at RT. Tackle is a much more important/hard to find good players at position and if he's even average starting RT to me that would be a huge win and wouldn't even dare move him to G. I move him to guard only if he cannot hold up at tackle. 

 

There are some nice tests for our line by the end of the season and they will serve as litmus test about what we need on the line. I get what @Superman means by trying to be 2 deep at every position, but IMO that's unrealistic. IMO if you are 8 deep at the line you are doing pretty good. Most teams in the league don't even have 5 linemen that should be starting in the league. 

 

In case Braden doesn't show he can hold up against the better competition he's going to face by the end of the season I would be looking at either a vet or another high draft pick to slot at RT and preferably it will be one with the potential to be long-term LT if for some reason Ballard decides he doesn't want to spend on AC past his current contract(I wouldn't advise that... in fact if I'm Ballard I would be calling his agent right now to see if we can strike a reasonable extension for 2-3 more years). 

 

Overall I've been impressed by the line and right now I wouldn't change anything. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, RollerColt said:

I.E. we shouldn't stop searching for players, since you never know what's going to happen. 

 

Yup. Two years ago, the Cowboys had a great OL with no issues. Last year, Tyron Smith gets hurt and their line looks iffy. This year, Travis Frederick is sick and the line looks average. 

 

Before last season, we thought Haeg, Good and Clark might be big factors on the OL. None of them have played in the last three weeks. 

 

So I want the OL to be good, to have depth, and to have some young guys who can develop. I don't think anyone in the front office should ever think the line is fixed, or any other spot on the roster. Every time we think something is fixed, we find out we're wrong. 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

I get what @Superman means by trying to be 2 deep at every position, but IMO that's unrealistic. IMO if you are 8 deep at the line you are doing pretty good. Most teams in the league don't even have 5 linemen that should be starting in the league. 

 

I feel like some are getting stuck in the weeds here. The point is I don't think the team should start operating as if OL isn't a priority just because they're playing well right now. I wouldn't forego adding a quality RT just because Smith had a couple good games there. 

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I feel like some are getting stuck in the weeds here. The point is I don't think the team should start operating as if OL isn't a priority just because they're playing well right now. I wouldn't forego adding a quality RT just because Smith had a couple good games there. 

yah, I don't mind that. But that kind of goes without saying. I wouldn't stop searching for good players at any position on the team not just at RT, but I would also put a lower weight on the need to add great RT if Smith looks like the real deal simply because it's a league with limited resources and we need to do some prioritization for the positions that we are sorely lacking at right now. 

[NorthernColt]

It's obvious this OL has improved, but lets not forget a big reason why they look better is the playcalling and Luck getting the ball out earlier.

[Myles]

7 minutes ago, NorthernColt said:

It's obvious this OL has improved, but lets not forget a big reason why they look better is the playcalling and Luck getting the ball out earlier.

He is, but not by a whole lot.   I think they are feeding each other.   The line is giving him time and he is using that time to find the open guy earlier.    In the past, it seemed as though he was rushed right a way and had to hold the ball longer so he could find an open player.    Lately he's had periods of 5-7 dropbacks where he scanned the field, threw the ball and didn't even get touched.  

[Yoshinator]

41 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

There was no timescale put on the question, and many have talked about options during the '19 Draft. 

 

I agree it would seem like a strange idea to move him now. But I would not be so bold to ridicule someone with a different opinion.

 

BTW your last para above kind of contrdicts what you originally posted.

The problem is, even if we draft a RT in the 2nd round of the 2019 draft that was a steal hypothetically, you would still have to hope Braden Smith can perform as well at RG as RT, or you just have two RT's fighting for one position, if Braden Smith did perform well at RG, then you have to hope that the RT can live up to his draft status and be as good as Braden Smith was at RT, Glowinski becomes a depth piece, and the combo of the new RT and Braden at RG may not even be as good as Braden at RT and Glowinski at RG. It's a deep thought process that isn't getting enough consideration, and people are just defaulting back to the draft process when Braden Smith was billed as a G and assume he's better there when he's proven he can 100% play at RT. Why change something that you hit on? You found your RT, that's a big accomplishment in itself. Why ruin it? That's his strength, build around it, don't tinker with it.