Possible OL regression this year?

[NewColtsFan]

 

I expect some regression in September.     The team basically barely played together at all in the pre-season.    OL play needs as much repetition as possible.     We've had very little outside of practice.   Not desireable.

 

Combine that with a new coach and a new philosophy and a new QB,  I suspect we'll struggle a bit the first month.

 

But I'd also expect to get most of the bugs worked out by October.    Hopefully sooner,  but I'm certainly willing to give it a month before getting overly concerned.

 

By the end of the season,  hopefully we have top evel OL play.

 

[Stephen]

4 hours ago, CantBeStopped said:

We will not be an overall better offense than last year. Brissett is not near the talent Luck was

We very could be a better overall  offense without Brissett  being better. For instance if Brissett throws  a screen  to Campbell and  he takes it to the house he could put up stats that rival Luck's  with less effort. Also mack being healthy  all season could improve  offensive  numbers to.

[Stephen]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I expect some regression in September.     The team basically barely played together at all in the pre-season.    OL play needs as much repetition as possible.     We've had very little outside of practice.   Not desireable.

 

Combine that with a new coach and a new philosophy and a new QB,  I suspect we'll struggle a bit the first month.

 

But I'd also expect to get most of the bugs worked out by October.    Hopefully sooner,  but I'm certainly willing to give it a month before getting overly concerned.

 

By the end of the season,  hopefully we have top evel OL play.

 

I think we hit the ground  running. The desire to prove they are more than just one man seems legit.

[John Hammonds]

I don't think that OL regression is "possible".  I think it is already here.  We couldn't run block straight up to save our lives this preseason.  Not once.  Not at all.  I'm very concerned that our OL won't be able to do it during the regular season either.  And if Castonzo goes down and we have to go with Clark?  God help us.

[CoachLite]

5 hours ago, BProland85 said:

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2019/9/6/20853222/howard-mudd-steps-down-as-colts-senior-offensive-assistant

 

Anyone else a little bit worried this OL could regress a little due to losing Coach Gugs last year and replacing him with Strausser this season? 

While anything is possible, I'm not worried in the least. Does anyone worry they might get even better?

[MikeCurtis]

2 hours ago, MPStack said:

 

If Brissett doesn’t workout, there’s several QBs in FA next season.

 

T. Bridgewater

J. Winston 

M. Mariotta 

 

Just look at those franchise signal callers! 

 

Yer KILL'en Me SMALLs

 

[MikeCurtis]

41 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

But we might spend a 1 or a 2 to replace Costanzo if we decide his best days are behind him or if we can't agree to a long term deal with him.

 

Thats where I see it.... OT, that could start at some point at LT or RT. It would give us options down the road.

 

 

 

 

 

Um......  I didn't see where you crushed someone's soul in this post, did you send before complete?

 

Juuuuusssssssst kidding........ 

 

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

TTT is a factor of several things. The O scheme, the QBs ability to go through progressions quickly and accurately, open WRs, and to an extent the OL keeping the D at bay. A QB in a quick hit scheme (like FR's), and with fast/open WRs, will not need an OL to hold the D for that long. One could say OL rankings are a product of TTT, instead of TTT created by the OL.

 

 

Yup it should. My big concern with JB is his ability to go through progressions quickly and simply hit the open guys accurately. I think both 16 and 17 stats are products of a poor WR group more than anything else. Both scheme and the improved WR group should both help.

The amount of time to throw is solely based on the oline.   If the qb is getting the ball out quick,   that has nothing to do with TTT.  If the first or second guy isn't open,   obviously the TTT better be good or the qb gets sacked.   If the qb has to go to his third read,   the TTT  goes up.    The oline creates that,  not the scheme

[EastStreet]

41 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The amount of time to throw is solely based on the oline.   If the qb is getting the ball out quick,   that has nothing to do with TTT.  If the first or second guy isn't open,   obviously the TTT better be good or the qb gets sacked.   If the qb has to go to his third read,   the TTT  goes up.    The oline creates that,  not the scheme

Not sure you understand. TTT is Time to Throw. It's an advanced stat produced by several services. It's the measurement from the time of snap to the time of throw. Next Gen Stats is the source I'm quoting. 

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Not sure you understand. TTT is Time to Throw. It's an advanced stat produced by several services. It's the measurement from the time of snap to the time of throw. Next Gen Stats is the source I'm quoting. 

I get it.   The time from the snap to the time the qb throws the pass.   If the object of the offense is to get the ball out quick,  the TTT is going to be low in theory.   If the first and second options are covered,  the qb will need more time to throw.   The oline creates that time. 

[TheNextGM]

Maybe it’s my rose coloured glasses, but I think the OL will be a huge strength this year. 

 

QN is a beast, Kelly should be healthier and stronger than last year, AC is still a good left tackle and Smith and Glow are young and still growing into their prime.. 

 

I’m guessing Mack and Hines have big years behind this beast!

[rock8591]

We should sign R. Kelly as backup center, that way we won't have a drop off should any injuries occur at center.

[stitches]

I've been on the record that I don't expect this OLine to be as good as people expect. I think it's shocking that people seriously put us as a top 3 unit in the league. This OLine was much better than it has been in the past, but it still was not at the level the simple sack numbers would suggest. There are several things to consider in that equation:

 

1. Sacks have high varience and are not the best descriptor and predictor of the strength of pass-protection. Our OLine was 17th last year in allowed pressures, while allowing the fewest sacks. Pressures allowed are a much more stable stat and much more indicative of the strength of the OLine in pass-protection. This means that while you might have allowed only 18 sacks last year, this level of pressure allowed is more in step with a 35-40 sacks allowed season and it should not be a surprise if we regress to that level this year. 

 

2. Playcalling - Frank Reich sped up this offense a LOT. He just doesn't let the pass-rush to get there, he gets the ball out of the QBs hands quickly. You can argue this is in fact a point in favor of the OLine keeping the sack numbers down this year too... except ... a lot of it is dependent on the QB too - having a QB who can read the defense quickly and make quick decisions with ball in his hands. Luck was MUCH BETTER than Brissett is in this category.

 

3. The QB... Luck was one of the best players in the league navigating the pocket and avoiding sacks(independent of playcalling). He moved much better than Brissett both in the pocket and outside the pocket. Luck was also a masterful orchestrator of the pre-snap adjustments and decisions, we cannot say that for Brissett... yet. Luck made this OLine look much better than it actually was. 

 

4. Internal improvement - if our OLine stays healthy I feel like it's not unreasonable to expect improved performance and cohesion on the line. This is a relatively young OLine with 2 second year players. If you assume regular improvement arch, we should expect better seasons from several of those pieces and better performance of the unit as a whole. 

 

So the question really is how much does 4. off-set the other points? IMO it's possible we have a very good OLine performance this year. It's possible we regress to the mean too(i.e. we have about average OLine not only by pressures but by sacks allowed too). The thing that's going to be very interesting to me is just how much will the emphasis on the run play this off-season affect our run-blocking performance this year.  

[Caffrey]

It's possible but I hope not.

 

It could happen if they are big headed about the success they had last year and complacency is in the air.

 

The did set a high bar after the 1-5 start and if they have similar success, I'll take it.

 

On the other end, positive side.  If the 2 rookies Q. Nelson and B. Smith can make that 2nd year jump in improvement, and Glowinski and others improvement with the 1 year chemistry behind them.  Kelly stays injury free and shows that he is the best OC in the NFL.  I also think Costanzo had one his best years and I think Q. Nelson next to him had a lot to do with it.  We may not regress but dominate.

 

Hopefully the coaches and leadership among the players prevent any complacency.

[zibby43]

7 hours ago, John Hammonds said:

I don't think that OL regression is "possible".  I think it is already here.  We couldn't run block straight up to save our lives this preseason.  Not once.  Not at all.  I'm very concerned that our OL won't be able to do it during the regular season either.  And if Castonzo goes down and we have to go with Clark?  God help us.

 

This post is not "on brand" with your avatar ("Don't panic") . . .

 

Just teasing you.  That was too good to pass up.  In all seriousness, I do not believe the preseason will be a strong predictor of this year's offensive line performance.

 

Vanilla play-calling, vanilla protection(s), minimal game-planning (something that was a huge emphasis for the offensive line and offense, in general last year), and minimal reps with all the starters together = the inconsistent play we saw in the preseason.