Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

2020 OL: PFF rankings, comments, and poll


2020 OL Opinion  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. What starter will have the biggest increase in PFF rating in 2020?

    • Nelson - 2019 Grade - 91.2
    • Castonzo - 2019 Grade - 81.3
    • Smith - 2019 Grade - 79.8
    • Kelly - 2019 Grade - 73.0
    • Glowinski - 2019 Grade - 60.5
  2. 2. What starter is most likely to see their PFF grade decrease in 2020?

    • Nelson - 2019 Grade - 91.2
    • Castonzo - 2019 Grade - 81.3
    • Smith - 2019 Grade - 79.8
    • Kelly - 2019 Grade - 73.0
    • Glowinski - 2019 Grade - 60.5
  3. 3. What are your thoughts on Danny Pinter?

    • We won't see him at all in 2020 unless there's an injury
    • He emerges late in the year as an interior starter because he's that good
    • He emerges early in the year as an interior starter because he's that good

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/29/2020 at 04:21 PM

Recommended Posts

All done with weekend chores and bored lol...

 

Wanted to take a look at PFF ratings for the last couple years for our 2 deep guys (more for some positions) in various sets. I know I'm taking some liberties and some won't agree with my 2 deep, so feel free to add you're own in a response. And I know PFF isn't perfect, especially for some positions, but it's a decent indicator nonetheless, and directionally correct at worst. And obviously, rooks and guys who didn't play last year won't have ratings. 

 

Going to start with the OL. Likely will do O-skill, and then the D side as well as time permits.

 

I'll start with PFF's scale

100-90 Elite

89-85 Pro Bowler

84-70 Starter

69-60 Backup

59-0 Replaceable

 

Offensive Line - Starters (sacks allowed in parens)

RT: Smith - 79.8 (7), 72.8 (3) - Rated 10th overall by PFF in 2019

RG: Glow - 60.5 (3), 74.8 (0) 

C: Kelly - 73.0 (1), 72.6 (1)

LG: Nelson - 91.2 (0), 78.3 (2) - Rated 2nd overall G by PFF in 2019

LT: Castonzo - 81.3 (3), 77.7 (2), 80.3 (6), 83.4 (6)

 

AVERAGE STARTER'S PFF RATING - 77.16 (OL ranked 3rd best in 2019)

 

Note1: Smith and Castonzo are pre-season ranked the 4th best T duo in the NFL.

 

 

C Depth

Patterson (C/G) - NA

 

G Depth

Elderkamp - NA

Pinter - 91.2 (at T in college in 2019)

 

T Depth: 

Le'Raven Clark - NA for 2019, 67.6 (2), 50.9 (2)

Green - NA, 34.5 (3), 31.3 (4), 55.7 (0)

Lang (T/G) - NA

Andrew Donald - NA, NA, NA, 63.5 (0), 45.4 (0)

 

Comment1: Not sure if Glow is just aging, or just had a down year. I'd love to see him return to 2018 form (74.8). Most don't realize he graded out better and Kelly and Smith in 2018. Hopefully, he gets some competition this year from Pinter or others. What is strange though, even with his lower rating, we averaged almost double the yards (5.0 yards) when running over Glow with a 54% success rate, than when we ran over Nelson (2.7 yards ) with a 46% success rate. I'm sure that Ds keyed more on the left side, but still, those #s are a bit confusing. Glow was still rated 16th out of 64 starting OGs in run blocking, so I guess not all bad.

 

Comment2: Interesting to see the impact of adding Nelson had on AC (he gave up a lot less sacks). His job got a lot easier with Q to his right.

 

Comment3: I love Kelly, especially in pass pro, but he has really struggled in run blocking at times. IIRC, we ranked pretty bad in terms of negative run plays up the gut. This is one of the PFF grades I scratch my head a little on. 

 

Comment4: Pinter is a wildcard given his history, but would love to see him emerge eventually at RG or a utility depth guy. Still new to the OL (from TE), and still likely growing into the 50lbs he added for the move. I think he'll settle in after some additional weight training, and at the very worse, great depth for years to come. I'd love to see him be the heir apparent for Glow.

 

Comment5: Hoping AC comes back rested and ready to ball out with his new contract. His last game, he gave up 2 sacks and 8 pressures (almost doubling his pressure #s for the year). Hoping it was just one bad let-down game after a frustrating season. His grade for that game however was still moderately high for giving up those sacks and pressures (another head scratcher).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question 1: Hard for Nelson to improve much more...he’s already a top 5 graded OL player. AC has been in the low 80s at peak...so it’s difficult to see him suddenly jump in grade. Similarly...Kelly has been in the low 70s...so it’s hard to see a huge jump...especially considering the top C last year was an 81.

 

That leaves Glow and Smith...and I just think Glow has the better chance (numbers wise) to grow his PFF grade. If he get back to 70...that’s a huge % increase that no one else can match.

 

Question 2: Nelson seems like a good choice...but only because the standard is so high. Ultimately, I went with AC...because while he has been graded that high before...it’s difficult for any aging player to increase or even match their year to year grades. There are exceptions of course...so we will see.

 

Question 3: I went with the first choice...but I would have liked another prediction choice or two that speaks to Pinter not seeing the field this year at all. He was a very raw OT in college...who is now transitioning again to RG. I am not even sure I would rule out the PS for him. I just think...given the standard for this OL...it’s difficult to see a scenario where this 5th round TE-OT convert (out of a football program that has produced like one NFL caliber position player and a P in decades) is going to be out there starting...in any scenario. Very likely this is strictly a developmental year and the Colts will sign some more depth as we approach the season (if it happens). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Question 1: Hard for Nelson to improve much more...he’s already a top 5 graded OL player. AC has been in the low 80s at peak...so it’s difficult to see him suddenly jump in grade. Similarly...Kelly has been in the low 70s...so it’s hard to see a huge jump...especially considering the top C last year was an 81.

 

That leaves Glow and Smith...and I just think Glow has the better chance (numbers wise) to grow his PFF grade. If he get back to 70...that’s a huge % increase that no one else can match.

 

Question 2: Nelson seems like a good choice...but only because the standard is so high. Ultimately, I went with AC...because while he has been graded that high before...it’s difficult for any aging player to increase or even match their year to year grades. There are exceptions of course...so we will see.

 

Question 3: I went with the first choice...but I would have liked another prediction choice or two that speaks to Pinter not seeing the field this year at all. He was a very raw OT in college...who is now transitioning again to RG. I am not even sure I would rule out the PS for him. I just think...given the standard for this OL...it’s difficult to see a scenario where this 5th round TE-OT convert (out of a football program that has produced like one NFL caliber position player and a P in decades) is going to be out there starting...in any scenario. Very likely this is strictly a developmental year and the Colts will sign some more depth as we approach the season (if it happens). 

Agree for the most part.

 

On Q1, the likely choices IMO are either Glow or Kelly. Kelly gets a ton of hype, but only grades out low 70s. Glow grades lowest, but was obviously is capable of more due to 2018's grade. Kelly SHOULD be the one that improves the most based on the hype, but Glow is my pick. Glow may just be getting old and losing it though.

 

On Q2. I picked AC just because of the aging factor, and a few games late in the season that were a bit bad. Q should stay consistent, Smith might even improve a little, Kelly should improve at least a little. And I don't think Glow can drop any lower. I don't think AC drops all that much though with Q next to him. 

 

On Q3. I don't think we see Pinter this year unless there's injury. Just too much jump in competition for a small school kid who has changed from TE to OT, and had to rapidly gain 50+ pounds to do so. That said, his transition in such a short time was pretty remarkable. And I know the talking heads have concerns about his arm length, but he's less than 1/2 inch off Braden Smith in that area. I agree this is likely a developmental year for him, but I wouldn't be shocked to see him get some PT late in the season if he's hit the weight room hard this offseason. I'd be decent money he makes the roster though. We simply don't have any decent G prospects to really compete with him at this point. Even if we pick up a guy during cut down, he'll still stick IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Pinter will not play OL unless someone gets hurt and IF he learns quickly as a guard.  That said, I believe because of his versatility he will be our extra tackle that comes in on short yardage and goal line and will also be used as a tackle-eligible in some situations.  He will also be used as a decoy until teams forget that he was once a TE.  Once that happens he will catch a pass for a first down (or touchdown). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 3:16 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Question 1 - I voted Glow, 60.5 is pretty low. Only room for improvement.

 

Question 2 - I voted Castonzo, but he will still be good.

 

Question 3 - I voted we won't see Pinter unless injuries occur.

That is exactly how I voted as well.

The thing is PPF ratings do not tell the whole story on a player.

Players going up against higher or lower talented players effects their ratings.

Example: Did Glows rating go down because the opposing team worked on him knowing he might be the weakest link in our offensive line?  (as EasyStreet mentioned he graded better in the running grade)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • FWIW I thought this from last weeks mail bag was funny because it seems to support what both you and I are saying.  If what I understand your point being is the dline including Buckner played similarly well both games and my belief that 3techs don’t need to record sacks and tfls to be dominant. : “I can understand why fans who watched last Sunday's opener against the Jaguars, and then checked out the box score afterwards, might come away with the conclusion that DeForest Buckner didn't have much of an impact on the game. After all, the Colts traded away their 13th-overall pick in this year's NFL Draft to acquire Buckner, and then immediately handed him a huge contract extension, so expectations are high. I get that. But looking back at the film, I think what's evident is Buckner deserves a little bit more credit beyond his stat-sheet line of six tackles (one for a loss). As the defensive line started to gel in the second half — that's when it limited Jacksonville to six combined rushing yards and had three of its four sacks — you began to feel Buckner much more consistently, and the attention placed on him allowed for others (I thought linebacker Bobby Okereke was fantastic in the second half) to make plays. Buckner also had the eighth-best week among all NFL interior defensive linemen in run stop win rate in Week 1, according to ESPN. Now, moving forward, of course you want to see more of those impact-type plays out of Buckner — sacks, big run stuffs, forced fumbles, defensive touchdowns, etc. But I think it's also important to to remember there are other ways for the three-tech to impact the game, and Buckner did a pretty good job of that last Sunday.”  
    • I’m a little surprised you don’t see a difference in dline play between  the two games.  I don’t have access to any of the services but I would suspect that The grades are significantly higher for the dline in Sunday compared to the Jax game.   but Sunday was even more dominant than i thought, and I thought it was dominant.  Between the opening drive during which MN gained 75 and scored a FG and their last meaningless drive for 75 yds and a TD, the Colts gave up a total of 25 other yds.    against Jax, we gave up around 60 yds rushing in the 1st half and the dline looked less than dominant then imo.  Jax had 5 of 8 drives during which they scored if you throw out the kneel downs at the end of each half.   Percentage of  tackles and sacks for linemen were very similar in both games.  You said that colts had more pressures during the mn game and I said probably a function of Jax short passing attack.   buckner had 6 tackles v Jax and 3 v mn.  He had no sacks v Jax but 1.5 tfl.  He had 1.5 sacks v mn but no other tfl.  Statistically counting sacks, tackles, and tfl he was “better” V Jax.  But you probably don’t think He was better Iwould suspect.   i would be shocked if the dline didn’t grade out higher v. Mn than Jax even though the tackles, tfl, and sacks were very similar over all.   im sure teams keep advanced stats that show a clearer pic of when a d lineman wins or loses on each Play that doesn’t necessarily match easier to see stats like tackles, etc.   do you have access to the grades?  I’d really be interested in the units grades in the two games.   i agree there can be other factors like obviously opponent strength and the play of LBs and dbs.  And mn looks like they might suck pretty bad surprisingly to me.  I think the main problem with lasts weeks game imo is the LBs are weak in coverage and Indy is as a result susceptible to short passing attacks.     that being said, rarely do dlines dominate the LOs like the colts did.   i maintain that a guy like Buckner and dts in general could have nit recorded a sack, had only a couple of tackles and be more dominant than In a game where he recorded a few tackles and a couple of sacks.    
    • Let's hire an exorcist!  
    • Didn't Nick Bosa get hurt this week too?
    • This might be helpful.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...