OL Regression...

[csmopar]

A lot of posters on here have been saying the OL regressed this year. Maybe, maybe not. But if they did, they regressed to 3rd best in the league...

https://www.colts.com/news/offensive-line-third-best-nfl-pro-football-focus-2019?fbclid=IwAR062fJ25LXCLNRLPHqfzFpa2yFAwdXat-A2i-6Q8321yCB9oZmNDVMvCco

[Edo]

We still have one of the strongest OL in the League. Quenton is a beast, already x2 Pro Bowler top 3 of the league at least if not n#1, Ryan Kelly is one of the best C IMO (probably Tier 1). 
Only Glowinski and Smith could be better for our team. 

It's my opinion from overseas (France) where I managed to see at least 10 games this season
 

[lollygagger8]

Jacoby holding on to the ball for 15 seconds had a lot to do with that. 

 

 

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Jacoby holding on to the ball for 15 seconds had a lot to do with that. 

 

When we gave up 10 sacks to Sacksonville in 2017, Jacoby was a big part of it too and it has not changed much except for more throwaways, IMO, when the going gets tough.  OL pass protection numbers do get affected by that.

[Myles]

The O-line is great.   Wasting it with Brissett.   

[coltsva]

9 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Jacoby holding on to the ball for 15 seconds had a lot to do with that. 

 

 

Could also be his pre snap reads contributing to it.

[Colts_Fan12]

I dont think the O line is a problem at all the QB just holds the ball for 15 seconds an elite or very good QB with this line would be deadly.

 

however I'm in favor of signing Jack Conklin and kicking Smith in at G and possibly having the best O line in the league. this has nothing to do with my MSU fandom and wanting Spartans on the colts 

[ClaytonColt]

The O-Line is great. As it should be considering the resources poured into it.

 

Just a shame that it doesn't seem to translate into winning games. 

[Coffeedrinker]

3 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

The O-Line is great. As it should be considering the resources poured into it.

 

Just a shame that it doesn't seem to translate into winning games. 

It does translate into winning games.  If the Colts had the 2017 line we would have seen a similar record to 2017.

[Flash7]

Andrew Luck was one of the least blitzed QBs because he would make opposing defenses pay. He would identify the blitz, call the correct protection, and find the open receiver.

 

Unfortunately, the blueprint against JB is that other teams understand he is not willing to stretch the defense. The opposing defenses stack the box, focus on stopping the run, and send blitzes. This puts a lot of pressure on the OL, thus the perception that they've regressed.

 

In reality, it's the QB position that has regressed, causing a regression at WR, run game, and at the OL.

[Superman]

Weren't the pitchforks out for Chris Strausser a few weeks ago?

[Defjamz26]

Seems like everyone who has posted is on the same page. The line definitely regressed because of Jacoby holding the ball way too long. You give any defensive front that much time and they’ll eventually get home. The worst part is he won’t even roll out and try to find someone . He’ll literally stand right in the middle of the pocket and just stand there until he gets sacked.

[aaron11]

they finished top 10 in rushing, would have been top 5 if they didnt strangely abandon the run in Jacksonville 

[stitches]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

Weren't the pitchforks out for Chris Strausser a few weeks ago?

That's what happens when people rely on the most superficial of stats to judge performance, be it OLine or QB or any other position. Oh we gave up 14 more sacks this year, the OL must have been much worse. The fact that the QB was holding the ball for 3 SECONDS per drop back while Luck was holding it less than 2.5 last year doesn't matter. The fact that we gave up 15th most pressures last year and had the 3d best pass-protection this year despite the QB holding the ball for ages doesn't matter. 

 

I actually think the OLine played better this year than last year. I didn't think they were elite last year, but I do think they are on the verge of being elite if they are not already elite. We have the top rated LG in the league, we have top 3 rated LT in the league, we have top 5 RT in the league and top 12 rated center in the league... the only position that has been subpar has been the RG. 

 

The thing we need to improve on is the blitz pickups but better QB identifying some of those might help a bit and a lot of the worst moments were actually when Mack was injured and Wilkins and Williams had trouble making the required blocks. 

 

I am actually very happy with the way the OLine has played this year. I think they actually took a step forward. I just really really hope they manage to bring AC back. He's not the best lineman on that line, but he's probably the most important one and we will be in deep trouble if he retires. I read some stat that he was the LT in the league that was left on an island without help the most out of every OT in the league and the difference between him and the second one was HUGE. And his success rate in those snaps was amazing. 

[Myles]

23 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

Andrew Luck was one of the least blitzed QBs because he would make opposing defenses pay. He would identify the blitz, call the correct protection, and find the open receiver.

 

 

This has been a flaw of Brissett's since college.  

Good QB's can find the open guy on blitzes.   Jacoby doesn't seem to try.  I think he looks at his 1st intended target and then throws it away if he's not the open guy.

[ClaytonColt]

36 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

It does translate into winning games.  If the Colts had the 2017 line we would have seen a similar record to 2017.

How can that be proven?

[csmopar]

20 minutes ago, Superman said:

Weren't the pitchforks out for Chris Strausser a few weeks ago?

yes...

[KB]

Is every thread going to turn into how JB is a terrible starter? Nobody going to talk about Glowinski and how he could improve since RG is the weakest link, how much better Braden Smith would be at guard than tackle, or a tackle prospect that could propel this line to #1? Nope. Were going to complain about the QB over and over again until next season. Then itll be the crying about how he is our starting QB again (get ready people, he is our starter next year. Nobody coming out, thats available for us, is going to be better than JB.)

 

Be better people. You're making this forum negative and boring.

[aaron11]

5 minutes ago, KB said:

Nobody coming out, thats available for us, is going to be better than JB.)

i disagree, especially for the long term

[KB]

Just now, aaron11 said:

i disagree, especially or the long term

Im talking just next year. If we do draft a QB theyll most likely sit for a year. If I'm wrong and a rookie does start, the qb play will be worse than 2019.

[aaron11]

Just now, KB said:

the qb play will be worse than 2019.

 

 not if we get tua and he heals, if we get love then he wont be seen as a week 1 starter

[Yoshinator]

6 minutes ago, KB said:

Im talking just next year. If we do draft a QB theyll most likely sit for a year. If I'm wrong and a rookie does start, the qb play will be worse than 2019.

Literally the only thing any QB can do worse than Brissett is throw INT's. Without that, Brissett is literally the worst starter in the league. If we draft a first-round rookie, you 100% start him without thinking twice about it.

[Myles]

30 minutes ago, KB said:

Is every thread going to turn into how JB is a terrible starter? Nobody going to talk about Glowinski and how he could improve since RG is the weakest link, how much better Braden Smith would be at guard than tackle, or a tackle prospect that could propel this line to #1? Nope. Were going to complain about the QB over and over again until next season. Then itll be the crying about how he is our starting QB again (get ready people, he is our starter next year. Nobody coming out, thats available for us, is going to be better than JB.)

 

Be better people. You're making this forum negative and boring.

It's mostly because of how his play has affected most aspects of the offense.  Talking about the O-line allowing more sacks without Brissett being part of the discussion would be pointless.   

[KB]

16 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Literally the only thing any QB can do worse than Brissett is throw INT's. Without that, Brissett is literally the worst starter in the league. If we draft a first-round rookie, you 100% start him without thinking twice about it.

Yeah it's not like INTs are game killers. It's just us giving the other them the ball with no points gained.

 

Say the rookie picks up the yards. That's good. He most likely isnt going to get that many more TDs. Which was 22 for JB (passing and running combined). Could be that he barely scores in the red zone. Then he doubles JBs 8 INTs. Is that really that much of an improvement on the season. Not to mention some of those INTs could be the ones that kill the games. That's where I say a rookie wont have a good season, and JB will be the starter. I'm all for taking Love is Ballard wants him, and letting him sit a year.

 

Imma digress from the subject now tho because it's off topic of the post.

[Superman]

43 minutes ago, stitches said:

I am actually very happy with the way the OLine has played this year. I think they actually took a step forward. I just really really hope they manage to bring AC back. He's not the best lineman on that line, but he's probably the most important one and we will be in deep trouble if he retires. I read some stat that he was the LT in the league that was left on an island without help the most out of every OT in the league and the difference between him and the second one was HUGE. And his success rate in those snaps was amazing. 

 

I was prepared for the OL to take a step back this year, at least superficially. Only allowing 18 sacks in a season, including however many games they went with no sacks, isn't sustainable. But outside of some early issues, the line was great. And I think those early issues are probably more related to changes in the SOP, with a new OL coach and a new QB.

 

Separate but related, the guy who the Colts fired, leading to a fandom freakout, went to Miami. They gave up 58 sacks. And now he's gone in Miami. I'm thinking maybe he wasn't as integral to the success of the OL as people thought.

[Coffeedrinker]

42 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

How can that be proven?

Obviously there is no way it can be "proven" but at the same token your statement cannot that it leads to losses cannot be proven (the non negative version of does not lead to wins)

[ClaytonColt]

2 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Obviously there is no way it can be "proven" but at the same token your statement cannot that it leads to losses cannot be proven (the non negative version of does not lead to wins)

Well lets put it this way.

 

Having a top 3 offensive line can only be said to correspond to the 13th worst record at this point. It doesn't point to a clear link between the O=Line ability and wins/losses. 

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, KB said:

Yeah it's not like INTs are game killers. It's just us giving the other them the ball with no points gained.

 

Say the rookie picks up the yards. That's good. He most likely isnt going to get that many more TDs. Which was 22 for JB (passing and running combined). Could be that he barely scores in the red zone. Then he doubles JBs 8 INTs. Is that really that much of an improvement on the season. Not to mention some of those INTs could be the ones that kill the games. That's where I say a rookie wont have a good season, and JB will be the starter. I'm all for taking Love is Ballard wants him, and letting him sit a year.

People have this false narrative because Mahomes sat for a year and won MVP that it is the holy grail recipe to developing a QB. It's not. You learn by experience. I don't care if a rookie is equal to Brissett next year if he takes a big step forward in year 2. Watson, Lamar, Darnold, Allen, are all recent example of this.

 

If you want to redshirt the rookie, sign someone like Andy Dalton, who would thrive on this team for a year or two with an elite o-line and run game. There's at least 10 combined QB's in FA and the draft combined that are probably better than Brissett right now.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, ClaytonColt said:

Well lets put it this way.

 

Having a top 3 offensive line can only be said to correspond to the 13th worst record at this point. It doesn't point to a clear link between the O=Line ability and wins/losses. 

 

This is an absurd angle for you to take. Having a great OL doesn't guarantee you a winning record, but it's obviously better to be good at OL. What's the complaint here?

 

It's especially strange from a Colts fan, when we suffered through a decade of bad OL play.

[Coffeedrinker]

5 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

Well lets put it this way.

 

Having a top 3 offensive line can only be said to correspond to the 13th worst record at this point. It doesn't point to a clear link between the O=Line ability and wins/losses. 

If there was a one to one correlation between oline and wins you would have a point.  But since there is not, you do not.

[Superman]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

People have this false narrative because Mahomes sat for a year and won MVP that it is the holy grail recipe to developing a QB.

 

That's not true. The point is you don't throw a young QB to the wolves, especially if he still needs work. You can kill a young QB very easily.

 

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Andy Dalton, who would thrive on this team

 

Oxymoron. 

 

I'm dumbfounded by the desperation for mediocre QBs whose only attraction is that they are not named Jacoby Brissett. 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

People have this false narrative because Mahomes sat for a year and won MVP that it is the holy grail recipe to developing a QB. It's not. You learn by experience. I don't care if a rookie is equal to Brissett next year if he takes a big step forward in year 2. Watson, Lamar, Darnold, Allen, are all recent example of this.

 

If you want to redshirt the rookie, sign someone like Andy Dalton, who would thrive on this team for a year or two with an elite o-line and run game. There's at least 10 combined QB's in FA and the draft combined that are probably better than Brissett right now.

Honestly. If we draft a QB high his development should be priority no. 1 for this coaching staff and if he's ready to run the offense by game 1 of 2020 season I am OK with starting him and taking the lumps of starting an inexperienced QB. 

[ClaytonColt]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

This is an absurd angle for you to take. Having a great OL doesn't guarantee you a winning record, but it's obviously better to be good at OL. What's the complaint here?

 

It's especially strange from a Colts fan, when we suffered through a decade of bad OL play.

I have no complaint unless you can point one out?

 

It was simply a statement. I'm happy to have a great O-Line. I just wish that having a great O-Line translated into being successful when it doesn't seem to automatically follow.  

4 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

If there was a one to one correlation between oline and wins you would have a point.  

Which is exactly my point. 

[Coffeedrinker]

13 minutes ago, KB said:

Yeah it's not like INTs are game killers. It's just us giving the other them the ball with no points gained.

 

Say the rookie picks up the yards. That's good. He most likely isnt going to get that many more TDs. Which was 22 for JB (passing and running combined). Could be that he barely scores in the red zone. Then he doubles JBs 8 INTs. Is that really that much of an improvement on the season. Not to mention some of those INTs could be the ones that kill the games. That's where I say a rookie wont have a good season, and JB will be the starter. I'm all for taking Love is Ballard wants him, and letting him sit a year.

 

Imma digress from the subject now tho because it's off topic of the post.

Biggest difference between most fans and the view the FO and coaching staff takes.  Fans look at everything one season at a time.  

[stitches]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's not true. The point is you don't throw a young QB to the wolves, especially if he still needs work. You can kill a young QB very easily.

 

 

The thing is... if we draft a QB I don't want to start him if he's not ready and is overwhelmed by the task of running the offense, but I kind of am good with starting him if he looks mentally capable of processing and executing the offense, even if his performance would not be amazing and he will likely make a lot of rookie mistakes. I'd take that as the price. 

 

Also, most rookies drafted high get thrown into it with horrible cast around them. We actually have pretty good pieces all around that offense. We have a great OLine, we have a stable RB, we have a reliable TE, we have an experienced game breaker in TY Hilton, and hopefully some more weapons will be coming our way in the summer. Whoever we draft won't be thrown to the wolves the same way most rookie QBs are. 

[Coffeedrinker]

1 minute ago, ClaytonColt said:

Which is exactly my point. 

If you say so.  I never claimed there was a one to one correlation, I just said that the effectiveness of the oline has translated into more wins.  There are other factors involved because football is a team game and since I cannot go back in time and change the Colts oline to prove it, I know that if the Colts had a worse oline they would have had a worse record.

[Nesjan3]

Jacoby indecisiveness is what caused the Oline to look worse than they were. Castanzo still strong but getting older and may retire. Glowinski looks like the weak link we all knew he was this year. Kelly good but injury prone. Nelson and Smith are making Ballard look good.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's not true. The point is you don't throw a young QB to the wolves, especially if he still needs work. You can kill a young QB very easily.

 

 

Oxymoron. 

 

I'm dumbfounded by the desperation for mediocre QBs whose only attraction is that they are not named Jacoby Brissett. 

Your view in the first paragraph is outdated. Besides the Mahomes exception, the NFL backs me up on this. QB's start right away now.

 

As far the second paragraph, I can tell you have never watched a cincinatti bengals game (unless they play the colts). Dalton has nothing on the Bengals. No O-Line, no AJ Green, and the run game was terrible the first half of the year. Dalton would thrive as a stopgap option on this team.

[ClaytonColt]

1 minute ago, Coffeedrinker said:

If you say so.  I never claimed there was a one to one correlation, I just said that the effectiveness of the oline has translated into more wins.  There are other factors involved because football is a team game and since I cannot go back in time and change the Colts oline to prove it, I know that if the Colts had a worse oline they would have had a worse record.

And I asked if you could prove it. Which you couldn't and I'm fine with that.

 

Ah, but you're looking into the o-line in isolation. If we had a top 3 D-Line, a top 3 receiving corps or a top 3 defensive backfield would we have a better record. Who knows?

 

We've put our resources where we have. There isn't another line in football made up of 3 first rounders and a second rounder as far as I know so we should expect excellence to be fair.

 

The point of the game is wins and trophy's though so while we're sitting at home in January I just can't get too giddy about the position group that we've built to be the core of our team performing well. I'd be concerned if it wasn't.  

[Yoshinator]

12 minutes ago, stitches said:

Honestly. If we draft a QB high his development should be priority no. 1 for this coaching staff and if he's ready to run the offense by game 1 of 2020 season I am OK with starting him and taking the lumps of starting an inexperienced QB. 

We can't afford to start Brissett another year. If we sign or trade for a QB, then you can sit the rookie. However, sitting a rookie behind Brissett is not an option. If that scenario was presented, you start the rookie and let him develop on the field and get experience first-hand.