Linkenbach Moved to Guard [Merge]

[HtownColt]

Linkenbach had moved to left guard in the 90 minute walkthrough today and is competing for that position. So I won't have to see Linkenbach getting schooled at the tackle position hopefully anymore

[21isSuperman]

Link is arguably the most inconsistent player on the team. He showed some flashes of ability a couple of years ago, but hasn't done much since. I'm glad he isn't at tackle anymore.

[GoDeep]

Wasn't he playing G when the Chargers DL picked him up and chucked him?

[Malakai432]

Wasn't he playing G when the Chargers DL picked him up and chucked him?

Lol I think so, the play where Garay dominated him.

[dpete]

Word out of camp is Link will be competing with Reitz for a starting guard spot. It seems to have a lot of people puzzled. Thoughts on that specific situation and how the rest of the OL pans out?

[JoKeR]

Hopefully competing for the back up roll.

[Coltswarriors]

Why is he on the team?

HE'S HORRIBLE.

[Andy]

This is what happened the last time he moved to guard:

[Superman]

This is the second coaching staff that sees something in Link that makes him look like a guard (or is it that they see he's not very good at tackle?) I don't get it. The results when he's played guard have been definitive: he's not good at guard.

[Bubba_Rebel]

You know...coaching could change somethings....The Ravens cut Jeff Saturday...cause they thought he was no good apparently

[Fx Stryker]

Link is just horrible. Poor Manning who gets tackled by having their O-Line dropped on them.

[GoColts8818]

Link is arguably the most inconsistent player on the team. He showed some flashes of ability a couple of years ago, but hasn't done much since. I'm glad he isn't at tackle anymore.

He did pretty good last year in run blocking in fact most of Brown's best runs came behind him. With that said he's really bad in pass protection and frankly when you bring up the name Link the first thing people are going to think of is the Chargers game when the Colts played him at guard and he was embarrassingly bad. Now with that said that was two years ago and I don't think it's fair to judge an undrafted free agent rookie as a rookie based on one game and use that as the lasting memory two years later. Now in fairness to those that still don't like Link it's not like he's done much in the passing game to change that opinion. Maybe he can handle being a guard now that he's had more time and is an older player. He's a guy you want out there for what he brings to the ground game but the question is can the Colts find away to mask his lack of skills in pass protection.

[oldunclemark]

He did pretty good last year in run blocking in fact most of Brown's best runs came behind him. With that said he's really bad in pass protection and frankly when you bring up the name Link the first thing people are going to think of is the Chargers game when the Colts played him at guard and he was embarrassingly bad. Now with that said that was two years ago and I don't think it's fair to judge an undrafted free agent rookie as a rookie based on one game and use that as the lasting memory two years later. Now in fairness to those that still don't like Link it's not like he's done much in the passing game to change that opinion. Maybe he can handle being a guard now that he's had more time and is an older player. He's a guy you want out there for what he brings to the ground game but the question is can the Colts find away to mask his lack of skills in pass protection.

This fits in with the desire to ressurect the run game......

He might be a better run blocker and his pass block failures wont be as fatal at guard, right?

[TKnight24]

This is what happened the last time he moved to guard:

Look on the Bright Side, Luck will Run if that Happens this Year

[TKnight24]

This fits in with the desire to ressurect the run game......

He might be a better run blocker and his pass block failures wont be as fatal at guard, right?

Everyone says he is BETTER at Run Blocking than Pass. So maybe when we get in Goal Line Situations, he comes in for like a "Power" Formation. Idk, just throwing out some Possibilities

[GoColts8818]

This fits in with the desire to ressurect the run game......

He might be a better run blocker and his pass block failures wont be as fatal at guard, right?

I would say that's the goal with that said though he was just so awful in that Chargers game at guard I can understand, fair or not, why that is so hard for people to move on from.

[Gavin]

He's a Guard that much is obvious, hes not good with his feet,he has the power to move people in the run game, I hope he does better but I think he is a backup until he gets more consistent with his feet

[Superman]

Everyone says he is BETTER at Run Blocking than Pass.

The results don't support that conclusion.

Our run game was terrible when he was at guard.

[GoColts8818]

The results don't support that conclusion.

Our run game was terrible when he was at guard.

For one game in a blow out...not a very large sample size. It's not like he's played a tone of games at guard and I agree with everyone else who said he played horrible in that game as a guard but again I am willing to see if he's improved in two years and has more playing experience under his belt. With that said I think he's a high end back up/spot starter at best. I'd say there is a chance he doesn't make the final roster as well.

[TKnight24]

The results don't support that conclusion.

Our run game was terrible when he was at guard.

Agreed, but I always seen him as being Cut from the Team at the end of TC. Maybe Pagano & Arians see something that us Fans don't. Maybe they moved him back to Guard as a 2nd Chance. I quote Pagano "You wouldn't be here if someone didn't see Potential in you". So, what Potential do they see? Who Knows? I guess only time will tell us man

[GoColts8818]

Agreed, but I always seen him as being Cut from the Team at the end of TC. Maybe Pagano & Arians see something that us Fans don't. Maybe they moved him back to Guard as a 2nd Chance. I quote Pagano "You wouldn't be here if someone didn't see Potential in you". So, what Potential do they see? Who Knows? I guess only time will tell us man

They see he's a good run blocker. That's what he gives the team. Again if you watch the games last year the success we had running last came mostly to his side as a tackle. That's why the Colts moved Diem inside and put him at tackle because they wanted him out there for his run blocking skills. Now with that said he is so bad at pass blocking you can argue the good he does at run blocking is off set by the lack of skills of pass blocking. So I think the coaches know run block is a weakness so they are trying to find a spot for him by putting him inside where you can hide his pass blocking skills a little more. I think the Colts would have tried this last year had it not gone so bad in the Chargers the year before that the only time he's played guard. Hopefully he's grown and developed since then and can handle playing guard if he has his run blocking skills could help the line and if we can hide his pass blocking skills great it might just work. If he hasn't developed the way I think they are hoping it wouldn't shock me at all if he finds his way to the cut list.

I do think it's important to recognize that playing guard is not the same as playing tackle and recognize we've only seen Link in one game at guard and yes it was bad very bad but it was also two years ago with a different coaching staff and it kinda seemed like they threw him in there and I am not sure how much prep he had for it outside of that week. With that said even if Link does make the move to guard I wouldn't count on him to become some great player (although new coaches can sometimes do that with players) like I said before I think high end back/spot starter is about as good as he'll ever be. He wold be a stop gap move for a rebuilding team till the fulltime guard can be found or he could very well end up cut either are realistic options.

[John Dee]

Link is arguably the most inconsistent player on the team. He showed some flashes of ability a couple of years ago, but hasn't done much since. I'm glad he isn't at tackle anymore.

He is young and was ASKED to play ALL over the line last year... He is not starter but he is the type player a team needs to fill in anywhere and hold his own.

[John Dee]

For one game in a blow out...not a very large sample size. It's not like he's played a tone of games at guard and I agree with everyone else who said he played horrible in that game as a guard but again I am willing to see if he's improved in two years and has more playing experience under his belt. With that said I think he's a high end back up/spot starter at best. I'd say there is a chance he doesn't make the final roster as well.

this... the dude is versatile.. He is no Tarik Glenn.. but he CAN com off the bench and play the position..

Good OL don't just fall off trees........

Put him around a GOOD OL and he will not hurt them.

[lollygagger8]

So what does this say about Reitz!??

[21isSuperman]

He is young and was ASKED to play ALL over the line last year... He is not starter but he is the type player a team needs to fill in anywhere and hold his own.

One could argue he didn't really hold his own. Charlie Johnson could hold his own. Link, not so much

[TKnight24]

They see he's a good run blocker. That's what he gives the team. Again if you watch the games last year the success we had running last came mostly to his side as a tackle. That's why the Colts moved Diem inside and put him at tackle because they wanted him out there for his run blocking skills. Now with that said he is so bad at pass blocking you can argue the good he does at run blocking is off set by the lack of skills of pass blocking. So I think the coaches know run block is a weakness so they are trying to find a spot for him by putting him inside where you can hide his pass blocking skills a little more. I think the Colts would have tried this last year had it not gone so bad in the Chargers the year before that the only time he's played guard. Hopefully he's grown and developed since then and can handle playing guard if he has his run blocking skills could help the line and if we can hide his pass blocking skills great it might just work. If he hasn't developed the way I think they are hoping it wouldn't shock me at all if he finds his way to the cut list.

I do think it's important to recognize that playing guard is not the same as playing tackle and recognize we've only seen Link in one game at guard and yes it was bad very bad but it was also two years ago with a different coaching staff and it kinda seemed like they threw him in there and I am not sure how much prep he had for it outside of that week. With that said even if Link does make the move to guard I wouldn't count on him to become some great player (although new coaches can sometimes do that with players) like I said before I think high end back/spot starter is about as good as he'll ever be. He wold be a stop gap move for a rebuilding team till the fulltime guard can be found or he could very well end up cut either are realistic options.

All very True. But they should at least work with him. See how he does at G in the Pre-Season. Cause you can't base his Skills off of ONE Game & him being driven all the way back. That happens to EVERY Lineman at least once in their Lifetime of O-Line. Ex: When Freeney took Brees' OT & Drove him right into him in the Super Bowl. But did that Lineman get benched or anything? No. Maybe got yelled at, but he still starts on the Saints if I'm Correct. But I think Pagano & Arians will work with him. They don't see any progress, then yeah he's gone

[jimirsaysdog]

So what does this say about Reitz!??

i don't think it says anything about reitz but it may indicate that ijalana is still not recovered or they see ijalana strictly as a tackle.

[Superman]

For one game in a blow out...not a very large sample size. It's not like he's played a tone of games at guard and I agree with everyone else who said he played horrible in that game as a guard but again I am willing to see if he's improved in two years and has more playing experience under his belt. With that said I think he's a high end back up/spot starter at best. I'd say there is a chance he doesn't make the final roster as well.

It's not one game. He played guard for three or four games in 2010, and we had no success running the football in that stretch. It was one of the dumbest benchings of the season, and Mike Pollak was nothing special. But it was obvious that Linkenbach wasn't doing a very good job, to the point that Pollak got his job back by the end of the year, and Donald Brown had a couple good games.

I don't think it matters. If Linkenbach competes well at guard, then great. But I just don't know what our coaches see. I guess I'll find out in a couple weeks against the Rams.

[GoColts8818]

It's not one game. He played guard for three or four games in 2010, and we had no success running the football in that stretch. It was one of the dumbest benchings of the season, and Mike Pollak was nothing special. But it was obvious that Linkenbach wasn't doing a very good job, to the point that Pollak got his job back by the end of the year, and Donald Brown had a couple good games.

I don't think it matters. If Linkenbach competes well at guard, then great. But I just don't know what our coaches see. I guess I'll find out in a couple weeks against the Rams.

Let's get one thing straight right now. He started one game at guard in 2010 at guard. It was vs. the Chargers. After how awful he did that week at guard the Colts went right back to Pollak as can be seen here when it says Pollak took over for Link before the Cowboys game which was the next game after the Chargers game. http://www.rotoworld.com/player/NFL/4817/Mike-Pollak

There is a difference between thrown into a game for a handful of series and planning all week to be the starter a poistion. Either way it's a very small sample size to look at. It's not like Pollak who the Colts tried several weeks of getting the full reps at practice at guard and it just didn't work.

I didn't say the ground improved greatly with him as a guard I said he did well as a run blocker as a tackle which he did. With that said one guy on the line being good at run blocking isn't by it's self going to make a great running team so to just make a blanket statement that well the ground game didn't improve greatly isn't exactly fair it's a complex problem not just one guy's fault and I know you know that. What Link brings to the table is that he's a good run blocker, that's what the coaches see in him and they know that is something we need on the line. So to answer the question of why would the Colts try him again at guard the answer is that he is a good run blocker and they are trying to do what I think was the idea in 2010 put him in a poistion where you can hide his pass blocking skills. I would agree I don't think the Colts did a very good job with moving Link to guard in 2010 which is why I don't think it's really fair to judge him off of the Chargers game which is frankly what most people do when they hear Link and guard in the same sentence.

I am also not saying I expect Link to become a pro-bowl player or something. I do think it's fair to see what he can do if he has a full camp of guard under him along with a couple of years of playing experience we might find out that he's improved at guard since that Chargers game. He was undrafted rookie in that game who got owned as frankly he probably should have. With that said players do get better. How much better I don't know but I don't have an issue with the Colts at least checking it out and seeing if he can make the move. If he can't he either goes back to tackle or you just cut him which are both very real options.

[Superman]

Let's get one thing straight right now. He started one game at guard in 2010 at guard. It was vs. the Chargers. After how awful he did that week at guard the Colts went right back to Pollak as can be seen here when it says Pollak took over for Link before the Cowboys game which was the next game after the Chargers game. http://www.rotoworld...817/Mike-Pollak

I'm fairly certain you're wrong.

NFL.com and profootballreference.com have Linkenbach starting 4 games in 2010, and Pollak starting 13 games in 2010.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LinkJe20.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PollMi20.htm

http://www.nfl.com/player/jeffreylinkenbach/2507963/profile

http://www.nfl.com/player/mikepollak/294/profile

I'm going to do something that I wish I didn't have to, but I can't find an earlier link from a better source, so here goes nothing: Brad Wells wrote about Pollak being benched in favor of Linkenbach on 11/16/2010. That was after the Bengals game in Week 10. We didn't play the Chargers until Week 12. Linkenbach started those three games. He also started Week 3 against the Broncos, but I believe he played left tackle for injured Charlie Johnson.

Anyways, I'm not just basing my opinion on one play where he got bull-rushed by Antonio Garay.

There is a difference between thrown into a game for a handful of series and planning all week to be the starter a poistion. Either way it's a very small sample size to look at. It's not like Pollak who the Colts tried several weeks of getting the full reps at practice at guard and it just didn't work.

It is a small sample size, but that's what we have. Three games with him at guard, and it didn't work out very well. Not all his fault, but when you take Mike Pollak's place and the results get worse, then he takes your place and the results get better, that says something. The results with Linkenbach at guard have been unimpressive.

[GoColts8818]

I'm fairly certain you're wrong.

NFL.com and profootballreference.com have Linkenbach starting 4 games in 2010, and Pollak starting 13 games in 2010.

http://www.pro-footb.../L/LinkJe20.htm

http://www.pro-footb.../P/PollMi20.htm

http://www.nfl.com/p...2507963/profile

http://www.nfl.com/p...lak/294/profile

I'm going to do something that I wish I didn't have to, but I can't find an earlier link from a better source, so here goes nothing: Brad Wells wrote about Pollak being benched in favor of Linkenbach on 11/16/2010. That was after the Bengals game in Week 10. We didn't play the Chargers until Week 12. Linkenbach started those three games. He also started Week 3 against the Broncos, but I believe he played left tackle for injured Charlie Johnson.

Anyways, I'm not just basing my opinion on one play where he got bull-rushed by Antonio Garay.

It is a small sample size, but that's what we have. Three games with him at guard, and it didn't work out very well. Not all his fault, but when you take Mike Pollak's place and the results get worse, then he takes your place and the results get better, that says something. The results with Linkenbach at guard have been unimpressive.

Yes he started four games he started one at guard the other three came at tackle. Example, like you pointed out, he started for the injured Charlie Johnson vs. the Broncos as a tackle very early in the season and frankly did well in that game. I said he has started one game as a guard which he has. Playing tackle is not the same as playing guard. That's why I said the sample size of him as a guard is very small. Clearly the sample size with him as a tackle is much larger. All I am saying is that a lot of people have made up their minds on Link at a guard based on that Chargers game. Rather it's fair or not I can understand why people have done that. With that said I can also see why the Colts are saying hey let's see if he can do better now that he has more playing experience in general and what he does with a full camp as a guard. They like what they have seen with him as a run blocker and rightfully so they are concerned about pass blocking skills so they want to see if maybe now he's ready to play guard. Clearly he wasn't in 2010. However he is no longer an undrafted free agent rookie that was thrown into that role for a game with one week's of practice as the starting guard. That move made no sense, however just because that move made no sense and because it failed badly doesn't mean you can't try it now.

Also for the record the first link isn't even right as it lists him starting four games at tackle and we all know he started guard in the Chargers game. I remember the Chargers game and Collinsworth doing a great job pointing out Link all night and all night he kept talking about how he was making his first start at guard and how dumb the idea was and kept proving his point all night long. If Link played a handful of series here or there that's not the samething as starting. They are talking about pulling Pollak in the middle of the game which they did because I remember in the Pats game them wondering why Pollak wasn't in the game in the fourth quarter after they made the change.

So Link started in four games in 2010 one at guard three at tackle filling in for hurt players. They played musical chairs with the line that season (including doing it in games) so it often hard to keep up with who was starting when and where.

This also said even if we go with your point which is he started 3 games at guard that is still an extremely small sample size to judge any player. Let's not get lost in the small details here so someone can just stand up and say look at me I am right you are wrong which is what we are really doing at this point.

[Superman]

Yes he started four games he started one at guard the other three came at tackle. Example, like you pointed out, he started for the injured Charlie Johnson vs. the Broncos as a tackle very early in the season and frankly did well in that game. I said he has started one game as a guard which he has. Playing tackle is not the same as playing guard. That's why I said the sample size of him as a guard is very small. Clearly the sample size with him as a tackle is much larger. All I am saying is that a lot of people have made up their minds on Link at a guard based on that Chargers game. Rather it's fair or not I can understand why people have done that. With that said I can also see why the Colts are saying hey let's see if he can do better now that he has more playing experience in general and what he does with a full camp as a guard. They like what they have seen with him as a run blocker and rightfully so they are concerned about pass blocking skills so they want to see if maybe now he's ready to play guard. Clearly he wasn't in 2010. However he is no longer an undrafted free agent rookie that was thrown into that role for a game with one week's of practice as the starting guard. That move made no sense, however just because that move made no sense and because it failed badly doesn't mean you can't try it now.

Also for the record the first link isn't even right as it lists him starting four games at tackle and we all know he started guard in the Chargers game. I remember the Chargers game and Collinsworth doing a great job pointing out Link all night and all night he kept talking about how he was making his first start at guard and how dumb the idea was and kept proving his point all night long. If Link played a handful of series here or there that's not the samething as starting. They are talking about pulling Pollak in the middle of the game which they did because I remember in the Pats game them wondering why Pollak wasn't in the game in the fourth quarter after they made the change.

So Link started in four games in 2010 one at guard three at tackle filling in for hurt players. They played musical chairs with the line that season (including doing it in games) so it often hard to keep up with who was starting when and where.

This also said even if we go with your point which is he started 3 games at guard that is still an extremely small sample size to judge any player. Let's not get lost in the small details here so someone can just stand up and say look at me I am right you are wrong which is what we are really doing at this point.

Who did he start for at tackle? Johnson missed one game, Diem missed zero games.

I just went back and checked the games: Linkenbach started three games at right guard, vs. the Bengals, the Patriots, and of course, the Chargers.

I'm only pointing this out because you decided we needed to get it straight.

I agree that that's a small sample size. But how much of a sample do we need to determine that someone can't do a particular job very well? We've kind of decided that Jerry Hughes can't play end in the NFL, and we did it with not very many reps at the spot. It's not like he was kind of decent at guard; he was bad. It was pretty definitive.

If he winds up being a good option, then I say great. The coaches obviously see more of him than I do. I haven't spent very much time looking at his play from last season, but it's striking to me that he's considered a starting option at a position that he did so poorly at. It's two years later, and he could be much better at it now. All of this is possible. Until the results are in front of me in the first preseason game, I'm blind over here. But my ears pricked up at this, not because I think I know better than the coaches -- I've been very supportive of them so far -- but because it's strange that he'd be back at guard, considering how bad he was.

One more thing: this discussion highlights that we need help at guard. If our tweaking works out for this season, great, but I expect us to go shopping next offseason ($40+ million in cap space), and I think guard is going to be toward the top of the list.

[GoColts8818]

Who did he start for at tackle? Johnson missed one game, Diem missed zero games.

I just went back and checked the games: Linkenbach started three games at right guard, vs. the Bengals, the Patriots, and of course, the Chargers.

I'm only pointing this out because you decided we needed to get it straight.

I agree that that's a small sample size. But how much of a sample do we need to determine that someone can't do a particular job very well? We've kind of decided that Jerry Hughes can't play end in the NFL, and we did it with not very many reps at the spot. It's not like he was kind of decent at guard; he was bad. It was pretty definitive.

If he winds up being a good option, then I say great. The coaches obviously see more of him than I do. I haven't spent very much time looking at his play from last season, but it's striking to me that he's considered a starting option at a position that he did so poorly at. It's two years later, and he could be much better at it now. All of this is possible. Until the results are in front of me in the first preseason game, I'm blind over here. But my ears pricked up at this, not because I think I know better than the coaches -- I've been very supportive of them so far -- but because it's strange that he'd be back at guard, considering how bad he was.

One more thing: this discussion highlights that we need help at guard. If our tweaking works out for this season, great, but I expect us to go shopping next offseason ($40+ million in cap space), and I think guard is going to be toward the top of the list.

For sake of argument we'll say he started three games at guard (although I have since he did start the Jets playoff game at right tackle for Diem but that might not have been included in any of the lists) that is still a VERY small sample I don't care who you are. Look at Painter after three starts last year. People were ready to let him be the full-time back up going forward because he had played decent in those three games before teams had really learned much about him. With Link you were talking about an undrafted free agent rookie who was on a line that was frankly not very good and was always playing musical chairs. If nothing else he made the move from tackle to guard in season. I know last year people were worried about Diem making that move with a full camp and a whole NFL career under his belt and he had played that poistion before in his career. Now we do that to undrafted free agent rookie and what do we think was going to happen to him? It's not shocking he struggled.

I am NOT saying it's going to work. However when questions are asked like why would the Colts even try this the answer is because he is a good run blocker. Just because the line as a whole is not good at run blocking does not mean that a player is not good at that part of his job. The reason the Colts are trying this is to try to hide his struggle with pass protection by putting him on the inside where he will not have to deal with pass rushers as much as he would on the outside as a tackle. I would also guess that based on how the Colts have been talking that they want to run inside more where as the Colts teams under Caldwell liked to run outside more often so if you want to run inside you want your best run blockers insides. Link can run block no not at pro-bowl level but it's not like the Colts have pro-bowl run blockers on this team. So they want to see if he can play inside and see if they hide those pass blocking skills. If he can hey great. If he can't they will simply either move him back outside to tackle or just release him in general. Why not try it? Because at most he had two games where people didn't notice him at guard and one game where he was awful as an undrafted free agent rookie that was being bounced around the line.

That's why they are trying it. Is it going to work? Who knows. Like I've said I think at most he's a high end back up/gap stop starter. Clearly I think we can do better but you know what for a team who is trying to rebuild the line we might not have better so if the coaches think moving him inside to guard can make the line better I am all for it try it. It's not like Link is being named starter for life or something. The Colts are experimenting and trying different things. When you had a 2-14 team that's not a bad thing. Heck this doesn't even mean he is going to be a starter this year. Last year in the first pre-season game we started a guy who ended up released and another one in Diem who ended playing a different poistion on the o-line (in fairness Diem might have been moved before the game).

I think the coaches would disagree with the argument that Link is just bad. If that was the case they would have cut him. I think they like him as a run blocker and if he started three games and people don't remember two of them some would tell you as an o-lineman that means he was at least decent in those two games. I do think they would agree with people who say he is bad at pass blocking which is why they are going to try him at a different poistion which should help hide his pass blocking lulls not unlike what we are doing with Jerry Hughes since you brought him up. We've figured he can't play end so they are going to try him OLB to see if he can do that. So I don't think the Colts think Link just can't play I think they are torn because they really like what he does with run blocking and they know on a team that is weak at run blocking they can't just ignore those run blocking skills they just don't like his pass blocking skills. So I think the coaches are trying to see if maybe two years later and with more experience if Link can handle guard. That's what camp and the pre-season is for. If he can't then they move on.

[Superman]

...

All good points.

I'll point out that Link wasn't terrible when he played right tackle, although his pass protection isn't his strong point. And the run game to his side wasn't awful either. I get why that indicates that he's an option at guard. If that were the whole story, there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

But, unlike Painter, who had no more than three quarters as a starter, with no practice time, at the most difficult position in the game, we've actually seen Linkenbach play guard before. No, it wasn't a grand sample size, but I don't think it should have been either. I was very aware of the change when it happened, and it puzzled me then. I thought Pollak was playing just fine at right guard, and didn't understand the move. Then Linkenbach came in and didn't improve the situation. Then the Chargers game happened, and finally the coaches snapped out of it and gave up on The Linkenbach Experiment. I don't think a player has to play poorly at one position for an entire season in order for us to determine that he's not good at that position.

Again, using the Painter comparison, if Painter had bombed in his first three games and then been pulled, we wouldn't be talking about Painter as an option at quarterback. It's the opposite of Linkenbach, really. Painter looked decent in his first three games, and garnered some goodwill for himself. Link didn't.

So now, we're trying him at guard again. The last time he played guard, it wasn't impressive. I don't think it's surprising that people are groaning over this. I'm not groaning yet; if he looks bad against the Rams, I might, but not if the coaches make proper adjustments at that point. I don't mind seeing us experiment with different personnel packages. I will mind if we stubbornly stick with a package that's just not working, like we did in 2010.

If I had to put money on it, I'd say that Link won't be a starting guard this season. Perhaps he does well in the role; I hope he does. We certainly don't have anyone that's a lock for the job on either side. But it's very surprising that he's back at guard, considering he played decent at left and right tackle over the past two seasons, and played poorly at guard. It would seem pretty well determined that he's not a guard.

[GoColts8818]

All good points.

I'll point out that Link wasn't terrible when he played right tackle, although his pass protection isn't his strong point. And the run game to his side wasn't awful either. I get why that indicates that he's an option at guard. If that were the whole story, there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

But, unlike Painter, who had no more than three quarters as a starter, with no practice time, at the most difficult position in the game, we've actually seen Linkenbach play guard before. No, it wasn't a grand sample size, but I don't think it should have been either. I was very aware of the change when it happened, and it puzzled me then. I thought Pollak was playing just fine at right guard, and didn't understand the move. Then Linkenbach came in and didn't improve the situation. Then the Chargers game happened, and finally the coaches snapped out of it and gave up on The Linkenbach Experiment. I don't think a player has to play poorly at one position for an entire season in order for us to determine that he's not good at that position.

Again, using the Painter comparison, if Painter had bombed in his first three games and then been pulled, we wouldn't be talking about Painter as an option at quarterback. It's the opposite of Linkenbach, really. Painter looked decent in his first three games, and garnered some goodwill for himself. Link didn't.

So now, we're trying him at guard again. The last time he played guard, it wasn't impressive. I don't think it's surprising that people are groaning over this. I'm not groaning yet; if he looks bad against the Rams, I might, but not if the coaches make proper adjustments at that point. I don't mind seeing us experiment with different personnel packages. I will mind if we stubbornly stick with a package that's just not working, like we did in 2010.

If I had to put money on it, I'd say that Link won't be a starting guard this season. Perhaps he does well in the role; I hope he does. We certainly don't have anyone that's a lock for the job on either side. But it's very surprising that he's back at guard, considering he played decent at left and right tackle over the past two seasons, and played poorly at guard. It would seem pretty well determined that he's not a guard.

I think the big thing is that Link brings run blocking to the table and that is something the Colts sorely need which is why they are trying to find away to over come his pass blocking woos. Frankly if Link was even a decent a pass blocker we wouldn't be having this conversation we would be talking about how we got a decent player as an undrafted free agent. The problem is he isn't. I think they look at his run blocking skills and the lack of it on the rest of the team and go man we gotta get that out there. Then they watch his pass blocking skills and go man we can't have that out there so they are trying to find a way to make it work.

We did sorta give Painter a second chance if you look at the Jets and Bills games from 09. Some felt about him after those two games like they do about Link and then after his first three starts were going you know maybe he isn't that bad and then the league got tape on him and figured him out.

Look I am all for trying it but I don't expect great results. I think he'll be decent at best but with the bad shape the team is in I am all for trying it and not just going because he got owned in the Chargers game as a rookie (which is what a lot of people are doing) and saying it'll never work. Let's just see. I freely admit it might very well not work. I will say this Pagano unlike Caldwell is doing it the right way. He is doing it in the pre-season where he has all of camp to learn the poistion rather than moving him in season.

Best scenario we have a starting guard who can run block and we hide his struggles as a pass blocker. Worst case we move him back to tackle or cut him. I don't see how moving him and trying it is a bad thing. I can understand why people aren't excited about it however.

[Superman]

I think the big thing is that Link brings run blocking to the table and that is something the Colts sorely need which is why they are trying to find away to over come his pass blocking woos. Frankly if Link was even a decent a pass blocker we wouldn't be having this conversation we would be talking about how we got a decent player as an undrafted free agent. The problem is he isn't. I think they look at his run blocking skills and the lack of it on the rest of the team and go man we gotta get that out there. Then they watch his pass blocking skills and go man we can't have that out there so they are trying to find a way to make it work.

We did sorta give Painter a second chance if you look at the Jets and Bills games from 09. Some felt about him after those two games like they do about Link and then after his first three starts were going you know maybe he isn't that bad and then the league got tape on him and figured him out.

Look I am all for trying it but I don't expect great results. I think he'll be decent at best but with the bad shape the team is in I am all for trying it and not just going because he got owned in the Chargers game as a rookie (which is what a lot of people are doing) and saying it'll never work. Let's just see. I freely admit it might very well not work. I will say this Pagano unlike Caldwell is doing it the right way. He is doing it in the pre-season where he has all of camp to learn the poistion rather than moving him in season.

Best scenario we have a starting guard who can run block and we hide his struggles as a pass blocker. Worst case we move him back to tackle or cut him. I don't see how moving him and trying it is a bad thing. I can understand why people aren't excited about it however.

I don't think Link is a terrible pass blocker. Like I said, I haven't taken the time to break him down, but he was decent at right tackle. I had him as a backup tackle making the roster. Last thing I expected was for him to be back at guard. I'd expect us to use Donald Brown at fullback before I'd have called this move.

The snap reaction on Painter in '09 was unfair. The first time he got extensive work with the first team offense and had a gameplan tailored to his abilities was the preseason game against the Packers last year. Not surprisingly, that's the first time he ever looked like an NFL quarterback. And as the season went on, I blame the coaching staff more than I blame him for the way he fell apart. We were asking him to do way too much, and the defense was zero help. I don't think he's a good quarterback, but I think the way we handled his time as the starter really didn't do him any favors.

Back to Link, I don't think this is the end of the world. Like I said, if it's not working, I expect our coaches to adjust. I'm not hopping on the staff because they're trying something out, even if I am convinced it's a bad idea.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

God no he is an Ok LT a good Rt a HORRABLE GUARD

[GoColts8818]

I don't think Link is a terrible pass blocker. Like I said, I haven't taken the time to break him down, but he was decent at right tackle. I had him as a backup tackle making the roster. Last thing I expected was for him to be back at guard. I'd expect us to use Donald Brown at fullback before I'd have called this move.

He was pretty bad. I'd agree with you in terms of really seeing Link as a high end back up and who knows maybe that's where he ends up. Like I said before he hasn't been named starter for life or anything. To me this screams of the Colts just trying to see what they have which again is what camp and the pre-season is for.

The snap reaction on Painter in '09 was unfair. The first time he got extensive work with the first team offense and had a gameplan tailored to his abilities was the preseason game against the Packers last year. Not surprisingly, that's the first time he ever looked like an NFL quarterback. And as the season went on, I blame the coaching staff more than I blame him for the way he fell apart. We were asking him to do way too much, and the defense was zero help. I don't think he's a good quarterback, but I think the way we handled his time as the starter really didn't do him any favors.

Just as the snap reaction to Link at guard is unfair when based on the Chargers game alone which again MOST people tend to do when they think of Link as a guard. I would agree with you in that I would frankly blame the old coaching staff for how they handled both players. I don't think Link was given enough time at guard before he was thrown into it. That's why I think Pags is doing the right by trying it in camp. Like I said it might very well not work.

Back to Link, I don't think this is the end of the world. Like I said, if it's not working, I expect our coaches to adjust. I'm not hopping on the staff because they're trying something out, even if I am convinced it's a bad idea.

I don't really see the down side to it. If it doesn't work you can cut him or move him back to tackle. If it works out hey great we can get a guy who is a run blocker (which is something we sorely need for the o-line) on the field and we can hide his weak point which is his pass blocking skills a little bit.

[coltnorth]

It would be fair to point out that Link has put on considerable weight this off-season and from what I have heard, its good weight. He is now around 310lbs if I read that roster right. That's almost 15-20lbs I think. If he hit the weight room hard in order in increase strength, maybe he can hold his own a little better vs DTs. If Link moves to guard and stays there and Bigger Ben is hurt/cut, seems our depth at tackle will be scary thin.

[colts52761]

wouldn't olsen or hicks be a better option than link?