Castonzo to return - per CB

[csmopar]

37 minutes ago, MacDee1975 said:

 

Hell no.

 

DT or QB at 13

Honestly, I’m going BPA if I’m Ballard. 

[a06cc]

We still need his back up.

[BProland85]

I could see a very talented OT being available at 34 should Ballard choose to select Castonzo's successor at LT. 

 

Someone like Josh Jones or Austin Jackson could be there. 

[Patrick Miller]

Good Brady needs a solid o line to play behind. ;)

[PrincetonTiger]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

Honestly, I’m going BPA if I’m Ballard. 

Agreed

[EastStreet]

6 hours ago, CurBeatElite said:

Personally, I still think the weak link on the OL is Glowinski.  I also think B. Smith is a more natural fit at G than T (he's played well at T, I just think he'd be a dominant RG as opposed to an above average RT).  I think our OL would improve by moving Glow to the bench, moving AC or another very solid player to RT, moving Smith to RG and having AC or a stud at LT.  If AC's year-to-year, maybe we could draft a guy in 2-3 round and have him develop under AC for a year then try to make a move.  Not saying it'd be the best thing to do, but getting Glow off the field, IMO would improve the OL.

Every single OL in the league has a weak link. Glow's one of the better "weak" links, so not worried at all about him remaining. Get a QB that has a better time to throw and he'll look a lot better too. That said, I'm not opposed to drafting a LT, starting him at RT, and moving Smith in. It's the obvious means of getting a rook developmental time.

8 hours ago, stitches said:

 

It's hard to overstate just how important this return of AC is for the Colts. He was quite possibly the most important piece of our OLine last year. I cannot find the graph I saw about a month or so ago, but it showed AC was the OT in the league with least help in pass protection in the entire league with noone being even close to him and he was still above average in pass-protection. The success of our OLine is hugely dependent on him. The whole scheme depends on AC's ability to protect the blindside on his own... this allows us to send help to the other side and improve the performance of the right side of the line through scheming and shifting protections and help to the right side. 

 

It would have been a disaster IMO if he'd retired. Now I want to see the contract and see if we can glean anything from it about the likelihood of him retiring next year. We probably still need to start looking for his successor soon, possibly in this draft. 

I agree it's HUGE. I've seen several write ups on him, and recall the graph you are talking about. One thing one of the write ups talked about though, was that teams simply attacked our right side a ton more than left. More or less opposing Ds felt it was futile to attack our left with Q and AC, and sent pressure / overloads vs Smith and Glow. I don't blame them TBH. But, it likely means AC was one on one a lot more than most Ts. Both Q and AC are enjoying a bit of luxury due to their combined awesomeness lol. Q also needed to help inside a lot more than outside. 

 

I'm not sure it would have been a disaster if he retired, but it would have certainly required either a strong move in FA or early draft pick (13 or 34). I think now they can take a shot with 44 or 75. If AC did leave, I think they would have potentially done both (FA and draft)

[Yoshinator]

Forgot to comment here. Absolutely great news! This kinda cancels out losing that 6th round pick in a way. I still want to sign and draft depth o-lineman though. As Ballard said in his conference, we can work on our 6-10.

[GRUMPY OLD MAN]

hope he does not pull a luck and decide to retire after the season starts

[NewColtsFan]

Now that AC is coming back — even on a year to year basis — I’m not interested in using a high pick this year on an offensive lineman.   I’m willing to spend a 5 or 6 on a lineman who will be a quality backup.   I’ll use a high pick in 2021 to address future starters.  But we have too many other pressing needs to address this year. 

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Forgot to comment here. Absolutely great news! This kinda cancels out losing that 6th round pick in a way. I still want to sign and draft depth o-lineman though. As Ballard said in his conference, we can work on our 6-10.

The news that AC is coming back “kinda cancels out losing that 6th round pick in a way.”

 

Oh, Dear God!   Why do you say stuff like this? 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

The news that AC is coming back “kinda cancels out losing that 6th round pick in a way.”

 

Oh, Dear God!   Why do you say stuff like this? 

Why do you let it bug you? Ballard made a rookie mistake getting the pick conditional and a rookie GM got one over on him. Don't tell me that's all he could of got, the Jets have a 7th rounder and the Pats got next year's 6th from them afterwards for Demaryius Thomas that wasn't conditional. Jets would of done either option without the condition. Plus, a conditional pick for a player can be easily manipulated by benching him, which the Jets did to Hairston. It's only a 6th rounder, but if it happens once a year, things like this add up.

[NewColtsFan]

22 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Why do you let it bug you? Ballard made a rookie mistake getting the pick conditional and a rookie GM got one over on him. Don't tell me that's all he could of got, the Jets have a 7th rounder and the Pats got next year's 6th from them afterwards for Demaryius Thomas that wasn't conditional. Jets would of done either option without the condition. Plus, a conditional pick for a player can be easily manipulated by benching him, which the Jets did to Hairston. It's only a 6th rounder, but if it happens once a year, things like this add up.

I can’t believe you actually think you know better?    You seriously believe the nonsense you just write.  “Rookie mistake.”

 

And now the coming back of a top offensive lineman almost makes up for the loss of a 6th round draft pick?   What are you thinking?   Can you trade a 6 for a Castanzo-level lineman?   No.  A 5?   No.   And on and on.    You’re writing jibberish and you don’t even realize it.   I’m not your enemy.  I’m trying to point out complete nonsense. 

[GoColts8818]

41 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Forgot to comment here. Absolutely great news! This kinda cancels out losing that 6th round pick in a way. I still want to sign and draft depth o-lineman though. As Ballard said in his conference, we can work on our 6-10.

These two things are completely unrelated when it comes to Ballard.  Ballard had no control over the AC deciding to play this season.  As for trading Hairston he traded a guy they were going to cut and tried to get something for him.  It didn’t work out.  That doesn’t make it a bad trade as you seem to be implying here.  He took a chance on getting something for a guy they were going to give up for nothing.  That’s still pretty smart.  As for Hairston not working out he was a fifth round pick that happens.  Plus he was drafted for Pagano’s defense and no longer fit Frank’s when the coaching change happened.  This is why teams don’t just change from defense to defense year in and out.  You bring in guys who fit one kind of defense and when you change to another guys no longer fit it and you have to replace them.  

[EastStreet]

29 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Why do you let it bug you? Ballard made a rookie mistake getting the pick conditional and a rookie GM got one over on him. Don't tell me that's all he could of got, the Jets have a 7th rounder and the Pats got next year's 6th from them afterwards for Demaryius Thomas that wasn't conditional. Jets would of done either option without the condition. Plus, a conditional pick for a player can be easily manipulated by benching him, which the Jets did to Hairston. It's only a 6th rounder, but if it happens once a year, things like this add up.

Correlating AC to a 6th is a bad comparison..... but I agree Ballard made a mistake (conditional). 

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I can’t believe you actually think you know better?    You seriously believe the nonsense you just write.  “Rookie mistake.”

 

And now the coming back of a top offensive lineman almost makes up for the loss of a 6th round draft pick?   What are you thinking?   Can you trade a 6 for a Castanzo-level lineman?   No.  A 5?   No.   And on and on.    You’re writing jibberish and you don’t even realize it.   I’m not your enemy.  I’m trying to point out complete nonsense. 

The 6 for Constanzo was a little joke because, as a draft lover, I hate losing picks for nothing, no matter how small. I like Ballard more than anyone on this forum, but I still call him out on mistakes. Do you remember his end-of-season conference that you watched? He welcomes criticism from the fans. That's what this is. He's a great GM, but not perfect. I had no idea that pick was conditional until we lost it, and was surprised Ballard got taken to the woodshed by a rookie GM.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

Correlating AC to a 6th is a bad comparison..... but I agree Ballard made a mistake (conditional). 

AC to a 6th was a joke because I'm salty still about losing the pick lol. As a draft guy, I know you understand.

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The 6 for Constanzo was a little joke because, as a draft lover, I hate losing picks for nothing, no matter how small. I like Ballard more than anyone on this forum, but I still call him out on mistakes. Do you remember his end-of-season conference that you watched? He welcomes criticism from the fans. That's what this is. He's a great GM, but not perfect. I had no idea that pick was conditional until we lost it, and was surprised Ballard got taken to the woodshed by a rookie GM.

Oh, Dear God.

 

You actually DO believe you know better.   Heaven help us.   

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

These two things are completely unrelated when it comes to Ballard.  Ballard had no control over the AC deciding to play this season.  As for trading Hairston he traded a guy they were going to cut and tried to get something for him.  It didn’t work out.  That doesn’t make it a bad trade as you seem to be implying here.  He took a chance on getting something for a guy they were going to give up for nothing.  That’s still pretty smart.  As for Hairston not working out he was a fifth round pick that happens.  Plus he was drafted for Pagano’s defense and no longer fit Frank’s when the coaching change happened.  This is why teams don’t just change from defense to defense year in and out.  You bring in guys who fit one kind of defense and when you change to another guys no longer fit it and you have to replace them.  

Ac replacing a 6th was just a joke because I'm salty over losing the pick for nothing. Completely understand what you're saying in the paragraph. Ballard is a great GM, I'm just critizing him over a minor mistake because he can draft well, and that pick may of made the team. So it hurts all the more.

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

AC to a 6th was a joke because I'm salty still about losing the pick lol. As a draft guy, I know you understand.

I figured you were being tongue and cheek. 

On Hariston, from being named a starter in 2018 by Reich, to getting nothing for him, is a bit of a head scratcher. It will be interesting to see is NYJ keep him on the roster (IIRC he got a pick late in the season for them and looked good at times).

[GoColts8818]

5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The 6 for Constanzo was a little joke because, as a draft lover, I hate losing picks for nothing, no matter how small. I like Ballard more than anyone on this forum, but I still call him out on mistakes. Do you remember his end-of-season conference that you watched? He welcomes criticism from the fans. That's what this is. He's a great GM, but not perfect. I had no idea that pick was conditional until we lost it, and was surprised Ballard got taken to the woodshed by a rookie GM.

They didn’t lose a pick for nothing.  They were going to get a pick for a guy they were going to cut.  It didn’t work out.  Oh well these things happen.  It was a smart gamble to try to get something for a guy you were getting ride of no matter what.  
 

Who said you can’t criticize him?  You can, others can tell you why they feel your criticism is wrong.  
 

If you think that is getting taken to a woodshed many will disagree with you.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

They didn’t lose a pick for nothing.  They were going to get a pick for a guy they were going to cut.  It didn’t work out.  Oh well these things happen.  It was a smart gamble to try to get something for a guy you were getting ride of no matter what.  
 

Who said you can’t criticize him?  You can, others can tell you why they feel your criticism is wrong.  
 

If you think that is getting taken to a woodshed many will disagree with you.

Absolutely, my issue is the "conditional" part. For a player like Hairston, who is a borderline starter and can easily be benched, it's easy to manipulate that "condition". Whether it's games started, games played, stats (that's a little harder). I'm surprised Ballard didn't think of this. I would immediately as a GM.

[GoColts8818]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Absolutely, my issue is the "conditional" part. For a player like Hairston, who is a borderline starter and can easily be benched, it's easy to manipulate that "condition". Whether it's games started, games played, stats (that's a little harder). I'm surprised Ballard didn't think of this. I would immediately as a GM.

Yes but the Jets aren’t stupid.  They knew the Colts were going to get ride of him anyway.  They could have just said we will wait and try to sign him when you cut him.  I am sure that’s why they said let’s do a conditional pick.  Ballard probably didn’t have an offer for a better pick without an conditional pick.  So logic says make the trade if you are going to cut the guy anyways maybe you will get something back.  If you don’t you were going to cut the guy anyways so you didn’t really lose anything.  

[NewColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Absolutely, my issue is the "conditional" part. For a player like Hairston, who is a borderline starter and can easily be benched, it's easy to manipulate that "condition". Whether it's games started, games played, stats (that's a little harder). I'm surprised Ballard didn't think of this. I would immediately as a GM.

Ballard didn’t think of this..... 

 

I’m sure he’s having a V-8 moment slapping his forehead.    Can’t believe Ballard hasn’t hired Jared yet?   What is he waiting for? 

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Yes but the Jets aren’t stupid.  They knew the Colts were going to get ride of him anyway.  They could have just said we will wait and try to sign him when you cut him.  I am sure that’s why they said let’s do a conditional pick.  Ballard probably didn’t have an offer for a better pick without an conditional pick.  So logic says make the trade if you are going to cut the guy anyways maybe you will get something back.  If you don’t you were going to cut the guy anyways so you didn’t really lose anything.  

I would buy this if it was a conditional 7th, but as a conditional 6th I believe Ballard was trying to squeeze more out of the deal. We'll never know, but I would bet he could of got a guaranteed 7th if he wanted too. #Jaredloveshisdraftpicks 

[EastStreet]

13 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

They didn’t lose a pick for nothing.  They were going to get a pick for a guy they were going to cut.  It didn’t work out.  Oh well these things happen.  It was a smart gamble to try to get something for a guy you were getting ride of no matter what.  
 

Who said you can’t criticize him?  You can, others can tell you why they feel your criticism is wrong.  
 

If you think that is getting taken to a woodshed many will disagree with you.

We really don't know the situation or terms, but it does appear from the extraneous circumstances that we may have got "took" a bit.

 

If you look at his snaps, he played the majority of snaps in 2 early games (two 90+%) then benched, then mid season plays the majority of snaps in two games (one 80%, on 100%), then benched, then played the majority of snaps in two games late in the season, then benched the last two games.

 

In short, it looks and smells fishy, and a lot like snap manipulation. He had the 4th most snaps of CBs, and only 3 snaps behind the 3rd most. So really he was at minimum a #2 on the depth chart who started 6 games. Not getting 6th for that is pretty confusing. Whatever terms were set to enact the "condition", were weak as hell, and too weak for a guy who was a starter the year before.

 

 

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Ballard didn’t think of this..... 

 

I’m sure he’s having a V-8 moment slapping his forehead.    Can’t believe Ballard hasn’t hired Jared yet?   What is he waiting for? 

It would be interesting to see everything they do in regards to drafting players. Maybe I could replace Rex Hogan?  In all honesty, I'd love to work as a scout. Not going to relocate to do it. I am 32, so I am young enough still. It's a learning process like anything else. 

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

We really don't know the situation or terms, but it does appear from the extraneous circumstances that we may have got "took" a bit.

 

If you look at his snaps, he played the majority of snaps in 2 early games (two 90+%) then benched, then mid season plays the majority of snaps in two games (one 80%, on 100%), then benched, then played the majority of snaps in two games late in the season, then benched the last two games.

 

In short, it looks and smells fishy, and a lot like snap manipulation. He had the 4th most snaps of CBs, and only 3 snaps behind the 3rd most. So really he was at minimum a #2 on the depth chart who started 6 games. Not getting 6th for that is pretty confusing. Whatever terms were set to enact the "condition", were weak as hell, and too weak for a guy who was a starter the year before.

 

 

Thank you EastStreet, this is exactly what I was referring too.

[EastStreet]

21 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Thank you EastStreet, this is exactly what I was referring too.

The devil is in the details lol... 

 

We'll likely never know the specific terms, but given the facts, it's safe to say the terms were extremely weak for our side, and it's also not hard to view NYJ's use of him as highly questionable if we all agree there was some type of snap or starts threshold on those terms. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a learning experience for Ballard or whomever negotiated the conditions.

[Shadow_Creek]

11 hours ago, John Hammonds said:

Just announced.  AC will play!

[2006Coltsbestever]

30 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

[coltsva]

11 hours ago, stitches said:

 

The first smokescreen.

[NewColtsFan]

For the crowd willing to subscribe to the “we got took” nonsense.....

 

How about Ballard knew exactly what he was doing.   That he was willing to give-up the possibility of a 7 in order to try for a 6.   The chances that it didn’t occur to CB that they might sit Hairston so that he wouldn’t get enough snaps for a six are irregular much zero.   That’s none, nada, zip, zilch.   He thought Hairston might play well enough that the Jets would let him play and be willing to give up the 6.   But it simply didn’t work out that way.    
 

In order to buy into the CB got taken bit, you’d have to accept that nobody else said to him the possibility that the Jets might bench Hairston?   You think everyone in the front office all had the same brain cramp?

 

Really?   Seriously?!?   Come on now....

[Dingus McGirt]

What ever will the Colts do without that extra SIXTH round pick?  

[Yoshinator]

41 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

For the crowd willing to subscribe to the “we got took” nonsense.....

 

How about Ballard knew exactly what he was doing.   That he was willing to give-up the possibility of a 7 in order to try for a 6.   The chances that it didn’t occur to CB that they might sit Hairston so that he wouldn’t get enough snaps for a six are irregular much zero.   That’s none, nada, zip, zilch.   He thought Hairston might play well enough that the Jets would let him play and be willing to give up the 6.   But it simply didn’t work out that way.    
 

In order to buy into the CB got taken bit, you’d have to accept that nobody else said to him the possibility that the Jets might bench Hairston?   You think everyone in the front office all had the same brain cramp?

 

Really?   Seriously?!?   Come on now....

If this is true, then Ballard and everyone else made a bad group decision. You get the Jets 7th round pick guaranteed in one scenario (which was probably going to be a top 10 pick in the round at that time). The other scenario you have the Chiefs 6th round pick (who were likely to be a playoff team). These picks were likely to be 10-15 picks apart with compensatory picks added. Keep in mind the conditional 6th round pick isn't the Jets pick, it's the Chiefs. So Ballard is risking a guaranteed pick to move 10-15 spots in the draft.

 

That's just a bad decision, especially when the Jets can manipulate the condition. Bad group decision if you want to call it that, and bad when you even look at the small reward it offers without hindsight if it works. Sorry to micro-analyze this so much, but Ballard made a mistake, with or without hindsight, and it cost us draft capital (albeit very small draft capital). Can't you admit Ballard isn't perfect and he made a wrong decision? I'm not saying he's a bad GM, but he was naive here to think Joe Douglas would not manipulate the condition.

[NewColtsFan]

39 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If this is true, then Ballard and everyone else made a bad group decision. You get the Jets 7th round pick guaranteed in one scenario (which was probably going to be a top 10 pick in the round at that time). The other scenario you have the Chiefs 6th round pick (who were likely to be a playoff team). These picks were likely to be 10-15 picks apart with compensatory picks added. Keep in mind the conditional 6th round pick isn't the Jets pick, it's the Chiefs. So Ballard is risking a guaranteed pick to move 10-15 spots in the draft.

 

That's just a bad decision, especially when the Jets can manipulate the condition. Bad group decision if you want to call it that, and bad when you even look at the small reward it offers without hindsight if it works. Sorry to micro-analyze this so much, but Ballard made a mistake, with or without hindsight, and it cost us draft capital (albeit very small draft capital). Can't you admit Ballard isn't perfect and he made a wrong decision? I'm not saying he's a bad GM, but he was naive here to think Joe Douglas would not manipulate the condition.

Right.   You’re the only one who has thought this through clearly. 
 

Just you.   No one else.    You.

 

I’ve said my piece.  I’m done.  Good luck. 

[csmopar]

11 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Forgot to comment here. Absolutely great news! This kinda cancels out losing that 6th round pick in a way. I still want to sign and draft depth o-lineman though. As Ballard said in his conference, we can work on our 6-10.

Huh?! AC equates to a 6th rounder?! Probably been better if you hadn’t remembered to comment 

[Valpo2004]

Alright!

 

We got the band back together on the OL.  

 

If we are in the running to sign Rivers, our odds just went up.  

[jimmy g]

On 2/25/2020 at 8:23 PM, NewColtsFan said:

Now that AC is coming back — even on a year to year basis — I’m not interested in using a high pick this year on an offensive lineman.   I’m willing to spend a 5 or 6 on a lineman who will be a quality backup.   I’ll use a high pick in 2021 to address future starters.  But we have too many other pressing needs to address this year. 

Iowa's  Triston Wirtz!!!

[EastStreet]

21 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If this is true, then Ballard and everyone else made a bad group decision. You get the Jets 7th round pick guaranteed in one scenario (which was probably going to be a top 10 pick in the round at that time). The other scenario you have the Chiefs 6th round pick (who were likely to be a playoff team). These picks were likely to be 10-15 picks apart with compensatory picks added. Keep in mind the conditional 6th round pick isn't the Jets pick, it's the Chiefs. So Ballard is risking a guaranteed pick to move 10-15 spots in the draft.

 

That's just a bad decision, especially when the Jets can manipulate the condition. Bad group decision if you want to call it that, and bad when you even look at the small reward it offers without hindsight if it works. Sorry to micro-analyze this so much, but Ballard made a mistake, with or without hindsight, and it cost us draft capital (albeit very small draft capital). Can't you admit Ballard isn't perfect and he made a wrong decision? I'm not saying he's a bad GM, but he was naive here to think Joe Douglas would not manipulate the condition.

It's all hypothetical right lol. Unless I missed something, we don't know if it there was a hypothetical guaranteed 7th on the table vs conditional 6th. 

 

IMO, whatever it was, it was bad. Call it a bad decision, bad gamble (trying to get a 6th over a 7th), or just getting taken advantage of with conditions. Either way we lost lost. This whole narrative that Ballard can do no wrong or doesn't make mistakes is pretty silly. Folks act like he's been a GM for 10+ years with an unquestionable history. I really like him, but this whole worship thing is funny.

[NewColtsFan]

 

There's no worship of Ballard here.    I have no problem with someone -- anyone -- criticizing Ballard.    But make a better argument than the ones being made here.    Which are little more than Fan Boy nonsense.   

 

No one has to agree with Ballard all the time.   I sure don't.    But you won't find me writing....  "what was he thinking?"   And certainly not about a 6th round draft pick vs. a 7th.

 

Make a better argument.   Make an intelligent argument.   Plenty of people do here every day.