Colts extend RG Mark Glowinski [Merge]

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

I think the bolded only applies to the clueless.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to use a draft pick early in 2019 that may not see the field much until 2020.  Castonzo is a FA after this season and will be 31 at the start of next season.  If they find a tackle they think could fill in on occasion in 19 and then take over in 2020, that is not a bad plan at all.

 

So you're saying there will be football beyond 2019?? That's a radical proposition!

 

Especially with AC missing time last year, and the general OL circus we've had, adding good players to the line should be a constant and persistent focus.

[throwing BBZ]

3 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

I think the bolded only applies to the clueless.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to use a draft pick early in 2019 that may not see the field much until 2020.  Castonzo is a FA after this season and will be 31 at the start of next season.  If they find a tackle they think could fill in on occasion in 19 and then take over in 2020, that is not a bad plan at all.

 

Thank you skinnz. You beat me to it.
AC, Clark, and Haeg are HIS potential starting LT's next season.
Ballard and his staff can't sleep very well with that possibility.
They have till final cuts to deal with it so...

[ColtStrong2013]

3 years 18 million. No brainer. That get's us to Nelsons extension and ability to reevaluate our offensive line going forward. Great news today... Keep it rolling Chris Ballard. Big offseason in the works. 

[jskinnz]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

You want to use a early pick on a player that won't play for a few years and be nothing, but depth? AC still has a good 4 years. We can look for his replacement in a couple of years, for now we need to deal with our more pressing needs like the interior and exterior pass rush and getting more weapons for our offense. 

 

And now you see why I qualified this for the clueless.

 

How many 35 year old LT's are there in the league?

 

Putting together a roster means planning for more than just the upcoming season.  

 

IF (we are arguing over hypotheticals) AC falls of the cliff with production, as has happened with aging players, isn't it good to have the replacement already on the roster.  What if this new LT can really play, isn't it good to have him on the roster with a cheap contract so they don't have to pay AC big money at his age?

[CR91]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So you're saying there will be football beyond 2019?? That's a radical proposition!

 

Especially with AC missing time last year, and the general OL circus we've had, adding good players to the line should be a constant and persistent focus.

 

2 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

Thank you skinnz. You beat me to it.
AC, Clark, and Haeg are HIS potential starting LT's next season.
Ballard and his staff can't sleep very well with that possibility.
They have till final cuts to deal with it so...

 

I have nothing against looking for more line depth, but we have a golden opportunity to add more young talent while Luck is still in the prime of his career. This is our open window to make a run if we can get the right players to contribute now, instead of drafting players to groom for a few years to replace a aging vet that still has a few good years left.  

[CR91]

Just now, jskinnz said:

 

And now you see why I qualified this for the clueless.

 

How many 35 year old LT's are there in the league?

 

Putting together a roster means planning for more than just the upcoming season.  

 

IF (we are arguing over hypotheticals) AC falls of the cliff with production, as has happened with aging players, isn't it good to have the replacement already on the roster.  What if this new LT can really play, isn't it good to have him on the roster with a cheap contract so they don't have to pay AC big money at his age?

 

AC already got his big contract, at his age, hes not getting another one. There is nothing to suggest AC's play has diminished. Hes still playing at a top level and it was his return to the lineup that started to show the brilliance of our line.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

I have nothing against looking for more line depth, but we have a golden opportunity to add more young talent while Luck is still in the prime of his career. This is our open window to make a run if we can get the right players to contribute now, instead of drafting players to groom for a few years to replace a aging vet that still has a few good years left.  

 

 

The draft is for the future, which is why needs-based drafting is so problematic.

[CR91]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

 

The draft is for the future, which is why needs-based drafting is so problematic.

 

And thats fine. I'm not saying we don't need to find ACs replacement or add line depth. I just think there are better options for us in the first three rounds that can better solidify our chances of being super bowl contenders. I just don't think getting a T for depth purposes helps us right now.  

[crazycolt1]

46 minutes ago, CR91 said:

I said 5 year 30 mil so I got the amount right, but the length wrong  

Man, you think like a cheapskate. Tighter than bark on a tree action right there.

(just joking you know)

[ColtsGermany]

Like that. Nice deal for the colts. 

[DaveA1102]

Glow-rious news!

 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It doesn't rule out anything in the draft. You can draft a LT prospect who can compete at RT, for instance. But this projects Glowinski as the starting RG, and pencils Smith in at RT.

 

But if they draft a T that competes with Smithy AND WINS then Smithy goes to RG(where I think is his best position) and Glowinski is now a backup G. The very thing you got on a poster asking what world he lives in where backup G's make $6 mil. Lol

[Yoshinator]

Very nice deal! I thought Glow would get 8-10 million a year, so I'm personally happy about the amount as well as the signing. Solidifies the line for 3 more years and we can now draft some solid depth in the draft if need be. The only other FA's I'm somewhat worried about now are Desir and Geathers. Glow was he most important IMO though, and we got him locked up at a very good deal. Nice job Ballard!

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

And thats fine. I'm not saying we don't need to find ACs replacement or add line depth. I just think there are better options for us in the first three rounds that can better solidify our chances of being super bowl contenders. I just don't think getting a T for depth purposes helps us right now.  

 

The reasons I disagree are because a) that's needs-based drafting; b) depth always helps, you just can never predict when you need it; c) it's unlikely that Day 2 draft picks are going to significantly influence our chances at contending in Year 1; and d) what you call "depth" should also be considered "projected future starters," which is what drafting is all about.

 

If you want to add players who can help push us toward contention in 2019, they should be targeted in free agency, not Day 2 of the draft.

 

JMO

[stitches]

BTW worth pointing out that Glowinski was a SPARQ superstar coming into the league. It's reasonable to expect that there is still untapped potential in him. He was coached by Tom Cable who must be the worst coach who still has a job and reputation in the league and the first chance Glowinski got outside of Cable's tutelage he immediately turned into a solid starter for us. He might still improve over what was a good season. 

[Rackeen305]

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Sometimes I wonder what world you live in. What team is paying backup OL $6m/year? Especially interior OL? 

 

We signed Slauson to be guard competition last year, a potential veteran starter. He got $2.5m. Glowinski will be the 26th highest paid veteran guard in the NFL; that's firmly starter territory.

 

And this move pretty much cements Smith as the projected RT. 

Question, With Glow resigned, would you use the 1st rounder on Oline? just a Qq..

[CR91]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The reasons I disagree are because a) that's needs-based drafting; b) depth always helps, you just can never predict when you need it; c) it's unlikely that Day 2 draft picks are going to significantly influence our chances at contending in Year 1; and d) what you call "depth" should also be considered "projected future starters," which is what drafting is all about.

 

If you want to add players who can help push us toward contention in 2019, they should be targeted in free agency, not Day 2 of the draft.

 

JMO

 

Turay and Lewis were day two players and they gave us 5 sacks between them before Lewis got hurt again. You can find starters in the 3rd round too. Alvin Kamara was a 3rd round pick. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

But if they draft a T that competes with Smithy AND WINS then Smithy goes to RG(where I think is his best position) and Glowinski is now a backup G. The very thing you got on a poster asking what world he lives in where backup G's make $6 mil. Lol

 

Not at all. If Glowinski loses a camp competition and gets relegated to the bench, oh well. But this signing clearly indicates that he's the projected starter.

 

The other poster said this contract is that of a backup guard, which isn't true, because no one is paying guards $6m and projecting them as backups. Glowinski is the starter, unless he gets outplayed in the offseason.

 

As for Smith, if he loses the RT competition, that doesn't automatically make him the starter at RG. Most likely, he'd be on the bench, unless Glowinski doesn't play well at RG.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The reasons I disagree are because a) that's needs-based drafting; b) depth always helps, you just can never predict when you need it; c) it's unlikely that Day 2 draft picks are going to significantly influence our chances at contending in Year 1; and d) what you call "depth" should also be considered "projected future starters," which is what drafting is all about.

 

If you want to add players who can help push us toward contention in 2019, they should be targeted in free agency, not Day 2 of the draft.

 

JMO

If a solid G or T like a Lindstrom or Dillard falls to the late 2nd, I have no problem taking them as BPA. That's what it's about IMO.

[CR91]

4 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

But if they draft a T that competes with Smithy AND WINS then Smithy goes to RG(where I think is his best position) and Glowinski is now a backup G. The very thing you got on a poster asking what world he lives in where backup G's make $6 mil. Lol

 

I think his point was towards replacing AC down the road not Smith

[Superman]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Turay and Lewis were day two players and they gave us 5 sacks between them before Lewis got hurt again. You can find starters in the 3rd round too. Alvin Kamara was a 3rd round pick. 

 

Turay and Lewis didn't push the Colts toward SB contention. More often than not, Day 2 picks don't. (It's interesting you didn't use Leonard, who would be your best argument; but I think we all recognize that Leonard is an outlier.)

 

And I'm not saying you can't find starters and even really good starters on Day 2. I'm saying the draft is not for finding players that push your team toward SB contention in Year 1. The draft is for finding future starters. If you draft players who can step right in and play at a high level as rookies, that's mostly an added bonus.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Question, With Glow resigned, would you use the 1st rounder on Oline? just a Qq..

 

Resigning Glowinski doesn't really affect my draft plans at all. It does make me think the Colts aren't going to target any starting OL in free agency, though, and I can make my peace with that.

 

5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If a solid G or T like a Lindstrom or Dillard falls to the late 2nd, I have no problem taking them as BPA. That's what it's about IMO.

 

Co-signed.

[CR91]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Turay and Lewis didn't push the Colts toward SB contention. More often than not, Day 2 picks don't. (It's interesting you didn't use Leonard, who would be your best argument; but I think we all recognize that Leonard is an outlier.)

 

And I'm not saying you can't find starters and even really good starters on Day 2. I'm saying the draft is not for finding players that push your team toward SB contention in Year 1. The draft is for finding future starters. If you draft players who can step right in and play at a high level as rookies, that's mostly an added bonus.

 

Leonard is an outlier. It would have been redundant. Turay and Lewis are not game changers, but they do help with pass rush rotation and matchup based. I can agree with that, but we've seen a number of times with FA has actually set a time back both cap wise and talent wise which is why I put more stock in the draft then FA 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

BTW worth pointing out that Glowinski was a SPARQ superstar coming into the league. It's reasonable to expect that there is still untapped potential in him. He was coached by Tom Cable who must be the worst coach who still has a job and reputation in the league and the first chance Glowinski got outside of Cable's tutelage he immediately turned into a solid starter for us. He might still improve over what was a good season. 

 

That's my thinking also. He's not a finished product. We had him for one season, and he went from waiver material to a solid starter. I don't think he's going to be a great player, but there's a good chance he'll get better.

 

Speaking of Seattle, it's amazing how bad their offensive coaching has been in recent years. 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Leonard is an outlier. It would have been redundant. Turay and Lewis are not game changers, but they do help with pass rush rotation and matchup based. I can agree with that, but we've seen a number of times with FA has actually set a time back both cap wise and talent wise which is why I put more stock in the draft then FA 

 

The draft is absolutely the preferred way to build the roster, and FA is to supplement. I agree. But I don't like the idea of ruling out good prospects in the draft because of the team's depth chart in March. I'm not going to reach past a better player to draft a player at a position of perceived need.

[Legend of Luck]

The beautiful thing is we have the resources to both add future-depth and add impact players right now so we can capitalize on this window. 110 ish million in cap space and 5 picks in the first 4 rounds. Ballard will address both, I'm sure of it.

[CR91]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The draft is absolutely the preferred way to build the roster, and FA is to supplement. I agree. But I don't like the idea of ruling out good prospects in the draft because of the team's depth chart in March. I'm not going to reach past a better player to draft a player at a position of perceived need.

 

If a top line prospect falls to our lap, Im not gonna be against it because its not a need. I would just prefer we don't go into the draft with the idea we need to address the oline again with one of our early picks.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Legend of Luck said:

The beautiful thing is we have the resources to both add future-depth and add impact players right now so we can capitalize on this window. 110 ish million in cap space and 5 picks in the first 4 rounds. Ballard will address both, I'm sure of it.

If the projections are correct, we'll get a 4th rounder for Moncrief as well and have 6 picks in the first 4 rounds, which is excellent ammo to continue improving this team. Hopefully we can keep up the trades for picks and compensatory picks themselves.

[crazycolt1]

In Ballard's presser and in his interview with Dan Dakich he said he will always work on getting trench players on both sides of the ball.  Up grading the talent level at most all positions.

 

[Superman]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

If a top line prospect falls to our lap, Im gonna be against it because its not a need. I would just prefer we don't go into the draft with the idea we need to address the oline again with one of early picks.

 

To the bolded, I think you meant you're NOT going to be against it? If so, we're mostly on the same page.

 

As for going into the draft with specific positional needs in mind, I don't like that approach period. I'm not about targeting specific needs in the draft, I'm about getting good players in the draft, and if needs and talent line up, that's a bonus. I want to target specific needs in free agency, and the Glowinski signing is a big step in that direction.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

If a top line prospect falls to our lap, Im not gonna be against it because its not a need. I would just prefer we don't go into the draft with the idea we need to address the oline again with one of early picks.

We were fortunate Nelson played every snap last year. Just remember how bad it was with Costanzo out though, and if two members of our O-Line go down, we'll be happy we drafted someone early. Always good to have quality depth, and at least 1 depth guy who is starting quality at a position.

[CR91]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, I think you meant you're NOT going to be against it? If so, we're mostly on the same page.

 

As for going into the draft with specific positional needs in mind, I don't like that approach period. I'm not about targeting specific needs in the draft, I'm about getting good players in the draft, and if needs and talent line up, that's a bonus. I want to target specific needs in free agency, and the Glowinski signing is a big step in that direction.

 

Yes. I adjusted it. Sorry. I can agree with that.

[CR91]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

We were fortunate Nelson played every snap last year. Just remember how bad it was with Costanzo out though, and if two members of our O-Line go down, we'll be happy we drafted someone early. Always good to have quality depth, and at least 1 depth guy who is starting quality at a position.

 

I think the interior is fine. We still have Haeg that can basically play anywhere in the line hence the Reitz position as I like to call it and Boehm as provided he can step in and play well in the line. The T depth does worry me though. That we need to address.

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, MTC said:

Initial contract details:

 

 

Update: Ian Rapoport also reported that it includes a $4.2 million signing bonus.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, TomDiggs said:

I am dying to see the numbers

 

Based on projections, good offensive linemen this off-season can expect $8M-$10M a year annually if they are solid.

 

Bobby Massie just got $8M a year.

 

There are suggestions that Juwan James could command $9M a year or more.

 

And yes they are OTs, but the gap between a good OT and a good OG has narrowed in recent years.

 

If Ryan Jensen is a $10.5M a year guy, then I will be curious to see what Glow signed for.

 

He played easily as a top-20 OG, so anything in the $8.0- $8.5M a year range or less would be a good deal.

That's freaking a great deal.

[#12.]

The final KC game probably sticks in our minds a bit too much.  Glowinski played well in 2018, and with what we saw overall from this O-line, there's no reason to screw with it.  

 

Other than a depth move or two, I doubt they'll do anything major in the draft or free agency.  I doubt Castonzo's successor comes in 2019.

 

 

 

 

[Archer]

It’s another lackluster OT group on day 2...or at least that’s what a preliminary assessment tells me.  So I doubt we address it that early.  As a need, I wouldn’t object to a Day 2 guy, though.  As it is, I expect us to add a developmental day 3 OT to the current cast (Castonzo, Smith, Clark, Hague, Garcia), and reassess after next season.  You’ll always have unresolved succession issues...

[Yoshinator]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

I think the interior is fine. We still have Haeg that can basically play anywhere in the line hence the Reitz position as I like to call it and Boehm as provided he can step in and play well in the line. The T depth does worry me though. That we need to address.

I'm not a huge fan of Boehm because of the drop off in run blocking, but we do need to address T depth. I wouldn't mind a BPA guy at T because he can be groomed to take over at LT for Constanzo. If someone like Glow goes down, Smith could be moved to RG temporarily and the T we drafted early hypothetically could be a RT as an injury replacement. So there's multiple scenarios to taking a T early.

[CR91]

Just now, #12. said:

The final KC game probably sticks in our minds a bit too much.  Glowinski played well in 2018, and with what we saw overall from this O-line, there's no reason to screw with it.  

 

Other than a depth move or two, I doubt they'll do anything major in the draft or free agency.  I doubt Castonzo's successor comes in 2019.

 

 

 

 

 

Its really hard on a oline when the flow of the game dictates what you're doing on offense. I don't care if you got the great wall of china in front of you.

[CR91]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

I'm not a huge fan of Boehm because of the drop off in run blocking, but we do need to address T depth. I wouldn't mind a BPA guy at T because he can be groomed to take over at LT for Constanzo. If someone like Glow goes down, Smith could be moved to RG temporarily and the T we drafted early hypothetically could be a RT as an injury replacement. So there's multiple scenarios to taking a T early.

 

We do need T depth, but If Smith went down, Haeg would probably move to RT. He started the season at LT for AC. Haeg isn't a world beater, but hes serviceable. 

[#12.]

Haeg showed he can be good G depth.