General off-season news thread

[rcubed]

Thought I would start a thread for general offseason news/discussions and get out the the last weekly game thread.


3 signed to 1 year contract extensions:
TE Mo Alie-Cox
K Chase McLaughlin
WR Zach Pascal

good to have all of them back IMO.

[BCN#1]

Fully agree there.

Hoping Vinny retires and Chase picks up the slack. I love the GOAT but I would bet Vinny cost us at lest 2 if not 3 games this year.

Sure hope we can get Castanzo a new contract agreed to. Sure hoping we don't get another Luck type last minute retirement kick in the arse from Castanzo if he does decide to bail out.

[Oldcolt]

It will be interesting to see how Ballard/Reich handle this off season. Are they done with Brissett? How do they evaluate this mess of a season, which players do they keep and build around? Do they finally use some cap space? We are in a shitty situation, needing play makers (including qb) big time and drafting 13th. On the good side, I hate being the team with all the expectations on them like last year- we certainly ain't that this year.

[jasperhobbs]

I see the needs below. Not all can be filled I know.

Offense
QB - Can go with Brissett another year but draft successor
WR- Hilton is getting up there in age and injuries are mounting. Hopefully, Parris Campbell can stay healthy and help. Still need to draft someone.
Offensive guard or tackle. I prefer moving Braden Smith to his natural position guard and drafting or signing a free agent right tackle.
Left tackle is Castonzo retires. Not an easy task finding a LT. Usually none available worth signing in free agency. Maybe with Washingtons #2 pick, snag one.
Tight end- draft one

Defense. where do I start?
DT- Draft one with the first pick.
Defensive end- Sign the edge rusher from Jags Yannick Ngakoue
Linebackers are fine if they can get enough beef up front so they can flow to the ball.
Secondary- Need to draft a CB and maybe even safety. Not sure Hooker can stay healthy.

Ballard needs to spend some cap money and bring in some players. 9 draft picks so should get some talent there.

[Racehorse]

Well, I typed out a long response and somehow lost it by hitting the wrong button, so let me type something shorter.

Top priorities are Pass rusher and QB. Fix those two and a lot of the rest falls into place. I think a quality pass rusher and the return of Turay will make our DBs better.

WR is not as big of a need as some claim because we get about six back from injusy by next year.

Beyond those two, I see TE and LT as top priorities. Even if AC doesn't retire,we need to find someone to replace him in the future.

The rest is solid, but can be exposed by the lack of the top two priorities that I mentioned.

[Oldcolt]

It will be interesting to see how the Colts handle the quarter back situation. I have no clue what Ballard/Reich are thinking.

[rcubed]

It will be interesting to see how the Colts handle the quarter back situation. I have no clue what Ballard/Reich are thinking.



Agree it will be interesting. My initial thoughts are they will see who is available to draft at 13, no trading up. If someone they like is there then they draft him. If not they roll with brissett and wait a year to draft. Brissett starts next seasons regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[njcoltfan]

It will be interesting to see how the Colts handle the quarter back situation. I have no clue what Ballard/Reich are thinking.

I think, their thinking , that Brissett is next years QB.

[JAFF]

Agree it will be interesting. My initial thoughts are they will see who is available to draft at 13, no trading up. If someone they like is there then they draft him. If not they roll with brissett and wait a year to draft. Brissett starts next seasons regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not trade up? They have the extra picks

[Dam8610]

Re-sign:
LT Anthony Castanzo (Franchise Tag if necessary)
WR Chester Rogers
SS Clayton Geathers
OL Joe Haeg

Tender:
None

Sign:
DT Chris Jones (if available, likely to be tagged)
DE Yannick Ngakoue
DE/DT Arik Armstead (if Jones is not available)
QB Teddy Bridgewater
TE Austin Hooper

Draft BPA

That would be a competitive team in 2020 IMO.

[apballin]

Re-sign:
LT Anthony Castanzo (Franchise Tag if necessary)
WR Chester Rogers
SS Clayton Geathers
OL Joe Haeg

Tender:
None

Sign:
DT Chris Jones (if available, likely to be tagged)
DE Yannick Ngakoue
DE/DT Arik Armstead (if Jones is not available)
QB Teddy Bridgewater
TE Austin Hooper

Draft BPA

That would be a competitive team in 2020 IMO.

I like this list minus Geathers and Rodgers

[rcubed]

Why not trade up? They have the extra picks

1. ballard likes his picks
2. I am not sure there is anyone really worth trading up for

[Racehorse]

I like this list minus Geathers and Rodgers

Why not Geathers?

[JAFF]

Re-sign:
LT Anthony Castanzo (Franchise Tag if necessary)
WR Chester Rogers
SS Clayton Geathers
OL Joe Haeg

Tender:
None

Sign:
DT Chris Jones (if available, likely to be tagged)
DE Yannick Ngakoue
DE/DT Arik Armstead (if Jones is not available)
QB Teddy Bridgewater
TE Austin Hooper

Draft BPA

That would be a competitive team in 2020 IMO.

Tagging castonzo sounds good, if he doesnt retire first.

[YDFL Commish]

Tagging castonzo sounds good, if he doesnt retire first.

Tagging him might make him retire.

[JAFF]

Tagging him might make him retire.

Why would you tag someone who wants to leave? Maybe to control his rights and trade him and get something for him I would guess.

Its not as if the Colts (Irsay) wouldnt pay him. If hes really thinking about retiring, they need to leave him alone.

[Hoopsdoc]

Why not Geathers?

Khari Willis.

[Spike]

Re-sign:
LT Anthony Castanzo (Franchise Tag if necessary)
WR Chester Rogers
SS Clayton Geathers
OL Joe Haeg

Tender:
None

Sign:
DT Chris Jones (if available, likely to be tagged)
DE Yannick Ngakoue
DE/DT Arik Armstead (if Jones is not available)
QB Teddy Bridgewater
TE Austin Hooper

Draft BPA

That would be a competitive team in 2020 IMO.

I would take Bridgewater over Brissett any day, any week, 100 out of a 100 times. Unlike JB, Bridgewater is a pretty damn accurate QB. That and the fact that Bridgewater doesn't throw every fucking ball 100 miles an hour. Since I doubt that Ballard will move up to draft a really good QB such as Burrow or Tua this year, hell yes I would try and get Bridgewater. I seriously doubt the Saints would let him go though because of Brees's age.

I do believe the Colts will be just good enough this up coming season that we won't have a shot in hell of getting Trevor Lawrence next year, and I am not sold on anyone else yet.

Just sick and tired of watching JB suck so damn much.

[JAFF]

I would take Bridgewater over Brissett any day, any week, 100 out of a 100 times. Unlike JB, Bridgewater is a pretty damn accurate QB. That and the fact that Bridgewater doesn't throw every fucking ball 100 miles an hour. Since I doubt that Ballard will move up to draft a really good QB such as Burrow or Tua this year, hell yes I would try and get Bridgewater. I seriously doubt the Saints would let him go though because of Brees's age.

I do believe the Colts will be just good enough this up coming season that we won't have a shot in hell of getting Trevor Lawrence next year, and I am not sold on anyone else yet.

Just sick and tired of watching JB suck so damn much.

I wouldnt take Tua. Too many leg injuries in a short college career

[apballin]

Why not Geathers?

Willis has the starting spot, then you can draft a backup and worst case scenario re sign geathers if the position gets bad due to injury because I doubt anyone signs him

[Dam8610]

Khari Willis.

So good backups aren't a thing?

[Dam8610]

I would take Bridgewater over Brissett any day, any week, 100 out of a 100 times. Unlike JB, Bridgewater is a pretty damn accurate QB. That and the fact that Bridgewater doesn't throw every fucking ball 100 miles an hour. Since I doubt that Ballard will move up to draft a really good QB such as Burrow or Tua this year, hell yes I would try and get Bridgewater. I seriously doubt the Saints would let him go though because of Brees's age.

I do believe the Colts will be just good enough this up coming season that we won't have a shot in hell of getting Trevor Lawrence next year, and I am not sold on anyone else yet.

Just sick and tired of watching JB suck so damn much.

I think Bridgewater has a fairly decent shot of being a franchise QB. He'd certainly do better than Briskett.

[Racehorse]

Willis has the starting spot, then you can draft a backup and worst case scenario re sign geathers if the position gets bad due to injury because I doubt anyone signs him

Geathers is a good backup, and won't command much money in free agency. He is also quality replacement when one of the other two misses a game or two.

[Dewey 5]

Re-sign:
LT Anthony Castanzo (Franchise Tag if necessary)
WR Chester Rogers
SS Clayton Geathers
OL Joe Haeg

Tender:
None

Sign:
DT Chris Jones (if available, likely to be tagged)
DE Yannick Ngakoue
DE/DT Arik Armstead (if Jones is not available)
QB Teddy Bridgewater
TE Austin Hooper

Draft BPA

That would be a competitive team in 2020 IMO.

I'm all in on Armstead & Ngakoue. Doubt that Ballard is.

[Colt Classic]

There's gotta be an Australian Rules Football player that projects to be an impactful d-lineman three years from now. That's more Ballard's style.

[JAFF]

There's gotta be an Australian Rules Football player that projects to be an impactful d-lineman three years from now. That's more Ballard's style.

I thought that was grigson

[apballin]

Geathers is a good backup, and won't command much money in free agency. He is also quality replacement when one of the other two misses a game or two.

Right so draft one or sign an undrafted FA whatever Geathers will be around if you need him hopefully we don’t no need to overpay a backup

[apballin]

So good backups aren't a thing?

Yea preferably thru the draft

[Colt Classic]

I thought that was grigson

Ballard prefers value versus paying market rate for proven results.

[JAFF]

Ballard prefers value versus paying market rate for proven results.

Like drafting a guard early in the first round?

[Racehorse]

Right so draft one or sign an undrafted FA whatever Geathers will be around if you need him hopefully we don’t no need to overpay a backup

Who said anything about overpaying?

[Dam8610]

Right so draft one or sign an undrafted FA whatever Geathers will be around if you need him hopefully we don’t no need to overpay a backup

I wouldn't overpay him. I'd resign him if he's willing to sign a team friendly deal.

[Hoopsdoc]

Ballards comments today are encouraging. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of Brisket, while conceding he will be our starter going into next season.

Per Florio.

[rcubed]

two quotes I pulled from articles covering ballard's presser:

“Look, Jacoby did some good things. I think as a whole, our passing game has to improve, unequivocally. You have to be able to throw the football to win in this league,”

“The jury is still out.”

Ballard is not dumb or blind. He knows we need a QB upgrade, question is can we find one?


Edit:
One more that was interesting:

“One of the biggest mistakes teams make is they force it. You can’t force the evaluation of a QB. Then what you do is you talk yourself into a guy and you set your organization back 4-5 years.”

[1965southpaw]

Ballards comments today are encouraging. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of Brisket, while conceding he will be our starter going into next season.

Per Florio.

I'm listening to the press conference on FB right now and that's an accurate assessment. You don't have to read between the lines too much to understand that he has learned that JB is not going to take us to the promised land. That said, it's a process and he's not going to make a change unless he can find a better talent that can get us there. He was very pointed in his criticism of himself for not stacking the roster with enough proven talent/depth to weather the injury/retirement issues that plagued this team. He also was candid that the locker room read their own press clippings too much when they were 5-2 rather than staying focused on the improvement needed to be a winning team.

[1965southpaw]

Holy fuck....Ballard just admitted that he over estimated being able to let proven veterans like Al Woods and Mike Michell go and expect a bunch of young pups get you where you need to go................Me thinky Ballard may be going shopping for some veteran free agents!!!! I love a leader that learns from his mistakes!!!!

[1965southpaw]

He was very short in his answer re: status of Ebron....."we'll be moving on". RE: AC he was glowing in his praise....no time-frame for retirement decision but if he continues to play football he will remain a Colt. RE: Tampa 2 defensive scheme.....acknowledges that we are not solid enough up front to generate sufficient pressure on QB......and that he is pissed we gave up too many chunk explosive plays......Eberflus priority is to be better in those 2 areas. He committed to improve the players to fix that.

[rm1369]

Holy fuck....Ballard just admitted that he over estimated being able to let proven veterans like Al Woods and Mike Michell go and expect a bunch of young pups get you where you need to go................Me thinky Ballard may be going shopping for some veteran free agents!!!! I love a leader that learns from his mistakes!!!!

Good he recognizes it, but some of us were saying it last year. Bodes well for Sheard though.

[Hoopsdoc]

He was very short in his answer re: status of Ebron....."we'll be moving on". RE: AC he was glowing in his praise....no time-frame for retirement decision but if he continues to play football he will remain a Colt. RE: Tampa 2 defensive scheme.....acknowledges that we are not solid enough up front to generate sufficient pressure on QB......and that he is pissed we gave up too many chunk explosive plays......Eberflus priority is to be better in those 2 areas. He committed to improve the players to fix that.

That was another interesting tidbit, the quote about Ebron. Clearly, that bridge has been burned, for whatever reason.

Probably just as well, as we don’t currently have the quarterback to make him good enough to keep.

[JAFF]

Good he recognizes it, but some of us were saying it last year. Bodes well for Sheard though.

Sheard plays his ass off every game.

[Chromeburn]

Good he recognizes it, but some of us were saying it last year. Bodes well for Sheard though.

This has been my criticism of him. Great he acknowledges it post-season. Be nice if he recognized it before the season started.

[JAFF]

That was another interesting tidbit, the quote about Ebron. Clearly, that bridge has been burned, for whatever reason.

Probably just as well, as we don’t currently have the quarterback to make him good enough to keep.

Less about Qb, more about him

[Chromeburn]

Less about Qb, more about him

Probably talked too much to the press about kicking Reich's door down. But I can understand him wanting to get ahead of the media. The fanbase really hates him in Detroit and it probably started with the bad press.

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

Probably talked too much to the press about kicking Reich's door down.

I don't think the "kicking Reich's door down" quote was the issue. The issue was the drama from his decision to shut it down for the year and proceed with surgery on his ankles.

The Colts claimed they were "blindsided" by the news. Ebron and his agent then followed up by saying the Colts knew how bad the ankles were and that Ebron played in severe pain all year long.

Wasn't really a good look from either side of the issue. There was a communication breakdown somewhere.

[Chromeburn]

I don't think the "kicking Reich's door down" quote was the issue. The issue was the drama from his decision to shut it down for the year and proceed with surgery on his ankles.

The Colts claimed they were "blindsided" and then Ebron and his agent stated that the Colts knew how bad the ankles were and Ebron played in severe pain all year long.

Wasn't really a good look from either side of the issue. There was a communication breakdown somewhere.

Yeah, I guess I consider that all one big event, or that's when it started to go downhill. But yeah shutting it down pretty much sealed his fate. But I think he knew that. He concluded that he wasn't going to do anything with JB and with Luck gone he figured he would move on to a team with a better QB.

[Pez]

Yeah, I guess I consider that all one big event, or that's when it started to go downhill. But yeah shutting it down pretty much sealed his fate. But I think he knew that. He concluded that he wasn't going to do anything with JB and with Luck gone he figured he would move on to a team with a better QB.

I don't think he will. He's under-delivered on two teams now, and bailed on one of those. Really the only team I can see him playing for is the Patriots.

[Dam8610]

Ballards comments today are encouraging. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of Brisket, while conceding he will be our starter going into next season.

Per Florio.

He conceded no such thing. The quote I read was "As of now, he's our starting quarterback." Cool. It's January 2nd, and as of now, Chad Kelly would basically be Ballard's only other option, so of course Briskett is the starter as of now. On March 18th, several interesting QB names come available unless they're franchised, and the Saints can only franchise one. Bridgewater would be a good option, as would drafting an heir apparent. If the latter option is enacted, then Briskett probably is the starter going in to 2020, but it's not a position I can see him holding for long in that scenario. If they don't address the QB position somehow, I'll assume the strategy is tank for Trevor.

[rm1369]

He conceded no such thing. The quote I read was "As of now, he's our starting quarterback." Cool. It's January 2nd, and as of now, Chad Kelly would basically be Ballard's only other option, so of course Briskett is the starter as of now. On March 18th, several interesting QB names come available unless they're franchised, and the Saints can only franchise one. Bridgewater would be a good option, as would drafting an heir apparent. If the latter option is enacted, then Briskett probably is the starter going in to 2020, but it's not a position I can see him holding for long in that scenario. If they don't address the QB position somehow, I'll assume the strategy is tank for Trevor.

I can see him sticking with Brissett. Ballard has been extremely conservative in nearly all of his moves. I don’t see him pursuing Bridgewater as a FA - he’s going to get a good contract. That’s risky. I don’t see him trading up as that is a significant risk as well. If he’s in love with someone at 13 he’ll pull the trigger. Other than that I believe Ballard when he says he’s not going to panic and set the team back by making a mistake. I’m not saying that’s the right path, but I’d be surprised if it’s not the one he takes. Hope I’m wrong.

[apballin]

Honestly with our O-line and Reich as a coach I like our chances with any QB not named Hoyer

[YDFL Commish]

Honestly with our O-line and Reich as a coach I like our chances with any QB not named Hoyer

So you would be happy with Trubisky or Winston?

[Dam8610]

I can see him sticking with Brissett. Ballard has been extremely conservative in nearly all of his moves. I don’t see him pursuing Bridgewater as a FA - he’s going to get a good contract. That’s risky. I don’t see him trading up as that is a significant risk as well. If he’s in love with someone at 13 he’ll pull the trigger. Other than that I believe Ballard when he says he’s not going to panic and set the team back by making a mistake. I’m not saying that’s the right path, but I’d be surprised if it’s not the one he takes. Hope I’m wrong.

I hope you're wrong, too. I see Ballard's approach as methodical and aware of the fact that a franchise QB is necessary for consistent success in the modern NFL. He's not going to overreact and sell himself on someone who won't fit the bill, nor should he. However, I do see him doing what it takes to get the guy he thinks will be able to take the team to the next level, should that opportunity present itself.

Honestly with our O-line and Reich as a coach I like our chances with any QB not named Hoyer

Briskett got exposed once NFL defenses got tape on him. This team needs a better QB.

[rm1369]

I see Ballard's approach as methodical and aware of the fact that a franchise QB is necessary for consistent success in the modern NFL.

What indicates to you that he is aware that a franchise QB is necessary for consistent success? Certainly seems obvious but Ballard was content to slow roll his roster building with a franchise QB in place. That doesn’t scream to me that he knows the value of a franchise QB. I’ll be very surprised if he risks the rest of his build shooting for a QB.

[JAFF]

Ballard acknowledged the obvious and didnt commit himself to any one course. There is a lot of time between now and camp.

[Chromeburn]

I don't think he will. He's under-delivered on two teams now, and bailed on one of those. Really the only team I can see him playing for is the Patriots.

Teams don’t care. If he can win them games they will sign him.

I thought the snake had burned coaching opportunities. Nope. Teams are lining up to interview him.

Unless your a nut job like AB, teams will try to sign you.

[Dam8610]

What indicates to you that he is aware that a franchise QB is necessary for consistent success? Certainly seems obvious but Ballard was content to slow roll his roster building with a franchise QB in place. That doesn’t scream to me that he knows the value of a franchise QB. I’ll be very surprised if he risks the rest of his build shooting for a QB.

So because he didn't blow his wad on a bad free agent class in his first year, he doesn't understand the importance of a franchise QB? Just confirming that's what you're trying to say.

[rm1369]

So because he didn't blow his wad on a bad free agent class in his first year, he doesn't understand the importance of a franchise QB? Just confirming that's what you're trying to say.

No, I’m saying in the 3 offseasons that Ballard has ran the organization he has bargain shopped, sat on cash, and himself said he was building through the draft - not free agency. He has preached its about the team, not one person. And he has followed through with those statements. He has built his team in a slow deliberate manner even when he had the single most important piece in place. So I’m asking what the fuck you have seen or heard that suggests he’ll make an extremely risky move now? He literally said a day or so ago that a wrong move at QB sets you back 4-5 years. Everything he has said and done in the past contradicts what you are saying he obviously knows. I’m asking you what the hell you base your comment on.

[Oldcolt]

Nobody has any idea of what Ballard is going to do, probably including him. He doesn't seem to be blowing smoke up our asses and knows that Brissett has big time limitations. I'm sure he wants an upgrade but who and how much does it cost? We are in a bad place, middle of the road team that needs a quarterback.

[rcubed]

Nobody has any idea of what Ballard is going to do, probably including him. He doesn't seem to be blowing smoke up our asses and knows that Brissett has big time limitations. I'm sure he wants an upgrade but who and how much does it cost? We are in a bad place, middle of the road team that needs a quarterback.
agree, this puts ballard in a really tough spot. middle of the pack needing a franchise QB is about the worst place to be. I dont think he will panic and do something stupid like sign winston or make a trubisky trade. however, I dont think he has many good options.

[Chaka]

I can see him sticking with Brissett. Ballard has been extremely conservative in nearly all of his moves. I don’t see him pursuing Bridgewater as a FA - he’s going to get a good contract. That’s risky. I don’t see him trading up as that is a significant risk as well. If he’s in love with someone at 13 he’ll pull the trigger. Other than that I believe Ballard when he says he’s not going to panic and set the team back by making a mistake. I’m not saying that’s the right path, but I’d be surprised if it’s not the one he takes. Hope I’m wrong.

What’s wrong with not panicking and setting the team back by making a mistake? Everyone can nitpick, but the truth is that Ballard’s long term strategy appeared to be working exactly as planned until the rug got pulled out from beneath him by the Luck retirement a couple weeks before the season was to begin. Even then, we demonstrated a marked improvement from the last time we were without Luck (2017), when we went 4-12 and looked depressingly bad.

Honestly, with even an average kicking game we might be in the playoffs this season (though admittedly probably one-and-done) despite the Luck retirement. Criticize Ballard all you want keeping Vinatieri around too long, but the guy had perhaps the best track record of any kicker EVER, so betting that Vinatieri would right the ship over the alternative - bringing in an unproven or disgraced kicker jettisoned by other teams - did not seem too unreasonable to me. Notably, he jumped on McLaughlin when he became available, so hopefully we caught a break there.

Bottom line: the future remains bright, despite all the hand-wringing here, though finding a workable QB is undeniably a major issue that will dictate the success of Ballard’s plans going forward.

[rm1369]

What’s wrong with not panicking and setting the team back by making a mistake? Everyone can nitpick, but the truth is that Ballard’s long term strategy appeared to be working exactly as planned until the rug got pulled out from beneath him by the Luck retirement a couple weeks before the season was to begin. Even then, we demonstrated a marked improvement from the last time we were without Luck (2017), when we went 4-12 and looked depressingly bad.

Honestly, with even an average kicking game we might be in the playoffs this season (though admittedly probably one-and-done) despite the Luck retirement. Criticize Ballard all you want keeping Vinatieri around too long, but the guy had perhaps the best track record of any kicker EVER, so betting that Vinatieri would right the ship over the alternative - bringing in an unproven or disgraced kicker jettisoned by other teams - did not seem too unreasonable to me. Notably, he jumped on McLaughlin when he became available, so hopefully we caught a break there.

Bottom line: the future remains bright, despite all the hand-wringing here, though finding a workable QB is undeniably a major issue that will dictate the success of Ballard’s plans going forward.

Where did I criticize Ballard for not panicking? My point with dam is that nothing Ballard has done previously indicates he values the QB position to the degree he would make the risky decision to sign Bridgewater to a big contract or trade all of his draft capital to move up in the draft. He’s pretty much said and done the exact opposite in his time here. That’s my point with dam.

As to the rest of it, you and I will never agree, but it’s not nitpicking to criticize Ballard’s decision to follow a long term rebuild with a franchise QB on the roster. I’ve been saying it since he started. With a franchise QB in place it was the wrong decision. I stand by that assessment. I’m sure you’ll point out Luck’s retirement was unforeseen and screwed it all up. I get that, however I’m on the record in our discussions saying that he shouldn’t be looking more than about 2 years ahead anyway because shit changes too quickly for a 4-5 year plan. So while the specific circumstance was unforeseen the fact something changed everything before he completed his master plan is not.

Look, I like the guy. I have never asked for him to be fired. You can spin how close they were to a one and done playoff birth all you want, but IMO this team is further away from a title today than it was the day Ballard was hired. Thats with or without Luck ever coming back from the shoulder injury. The roster is just improved enough that they won’t be in the running for a top QB prospect without mortgaging the future to move up.

The three most important positions for winning in the NFL are QB, LT, and pass rusher. Right now the Colts have questions or holes at all 3, so I’m not nearly as optimistic as you. And I sure as hell don’t see any glimpse of the dynasty you and Ballard have been envisioning.

[Pez]

Briskett got exposed once NFL defenses got tape on him. This team needs a better QB.

I agree that this happened, but I think it is an over simplified view. Briskett was injured, then our #4 wr was playing in ty Hilton's spot. There's not much to figure out when we are holding up a sign saying we cant pass the ball.

Yes brissett had a bad second half of the season, but I dont think you can attribute more than a third of that to teams getting tape on him.

I guess what would be an example of something they are seeing brissett do on film that teams were able to adjust for?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Chromeburn]

Nobody has any idea of what Ballard is going to do, probably including him. He doesn't seem to be blowing smoke up our asses and knows that Brissett has big time limitations. I'm sure he wants an upgrade but who and how much does it cost? We are in a bad place, middle of the road team that needs a quarterback.

Can’t be giving away draft plans to ease fan anxiety. We are just going to have to wait and see.

[apballin]

So you would be happy with Trubisky or Winston?

No id stick with brissett over those 2, I was thinking more like whatever QB they draft because I don’t see Ballard signing another QB to take brissett spot

[Pez]

I hope fromm declares. We could likely get a dt in the first and then trade up to get fromm in the early second. I like his decisiveness and accuracy. If anything he holds on the the ball a bit too long.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[njcoltfan]

I hope fromm declares. We could likely get a dt in the first and then trade up to get fromm in the early second. I like his decisiveness and accuracy. If anything he holds on the the ball a bit too long.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I think you should be able to pick Fromm up in the 3rd round

[Chaka]

Where did I criticize Ballard for not panicking? My point with dam is that nothing Ballard has done previously indicates he values the QB position to the degree he would make the risky decision to sign Bridgewater to a big contract or trade all of his draft capital to move up in the draft. He’s pretty much said and done the exact opposite in his time here. That’s my point with dam.

Agree that Bridgewater isn’t likely the way that Ballard would go, but I could see an expensive trade up if he believed the target was a likely to be a franchise QB.

As to the rest of it, you and I will never agree, but it’s not nitpicking to criticize Ballard’s decision to follow a long term rebuild with a franchise QB on the roster. I’ve been saying it since he started. With a franchise QB in place it was the wrong decision. I stand by that assessment. I’m sure you’ll point out Luck’s retirement was unforeseen and screwed it all up. I get that, however I’m on the record in our discussions saying that he shouldn’t be looking more than about 2 years ahead anyway because shit changes too quickly for a 4-5 year plan. So while the specific circumstance was unforeseen the fact something changed everything before he completed his master plan is not.

Well said, but I disagree. I won’t rehash our old debates here, but suffice it to say that I do not see Ballard’s approach as conservative or risk averse, but rather simply practical. The guy has always been a long term thinker, and clearly has a very specific idea about building a team – create a culture first, keep young, and use competition as a motivational factor. Reward those who excel in your system. That kind of an engine takes a few years to build, but should produce reliable performance once constructed.

As far as free agents are concerned, he’s called free agency “fool’s gold”, so he obviously doesn’t see it as a desirable way to build a team. No surprise there. Nevertheless, he’s been in the bidding for a number of high profile free agents, but the prices just went too high for the value he placed on the player. He also signed two risky free agents - Funchess and Houston – to large (though short) contracts last off-season.

Look, I like the guy. I have never asked for him to be fired. You can spin how close they were to a one and done playoff birth all you want, but IMO this team is further away from a title today than it was the day Ballard was hired. Thats with or without Luck ever coming back from the shoulder injury. The roster is just improved enough that they won’t be in the running for a top QB prospect without mortgaging the future to move up.

To suggest that we are further from a title now than when Ballard was hired seems ludicrous, particularly since you exclude Luck from this analysis. Go look at our 2017 roster, excluding Luck. We are now younger at nearly every position, and as good as or better at nearly every position as well – particularly RB, OL, and LB. Complain all you want about our current stable of WRs, but we were severely hampered by injuries, and in 2017 we were fielding the likes of Kamar Aiken, Donte Moncrief and Quan Bray.

I suppose your point is that by being merely average now, it will be harder to get the high draft picks to launch yourself to the head of the class. However, that hasn’t necessarily been true in recent years either, as the top recent QBs (Mahomes, Jackson, Watson) have all be drafted in the mid-to-late first round.

Anyway, I’m glad you like the guy, because my hope is that he stays around a long time. I think he’s one of the best – if not THE best – GM in the league, though his resume doesn’t show it yet. It’s a real bummer that Luck retired.

The three most important positions for winning in the NFL are QB, LT, and pass rusher. Right now the Colts have questions or holes at all 3, so I’m not nearly as optimistic as you. And I sure as hell don’t see any glimpse of the dynasty you and Ballard have been envisioning.

I think that’s pretty unfair to say - 2 of the 3 positions you mentioned (QB and LT) were locked down prior to the season (albeit by people drafted pre-Ballard), and Ballard had no reason to think otherwise until the Luck retirement and the threat of a Castonzo retirement reared its head.

As for pass rusher, he’s drafted a few promising ones (Turay and Banogu) and signed a big name free agent DE (Houston). Admittedly still a work in progress, but outside of taking Chubb instead of Nelson in 2018, what moves didn’t Ballard make that you believe would have helped here? I don't think keeping John Simon would have made that big a difference.

[Luck4Reich]

The constant talk that this team is years away from good is just plain stupid by some.

Fact is they were Super Bowl contenders if Luck had not retired.... and Luck wasn’t an elite QB.....yet.

The fact this team won 7 games (beat 3 playoff teams that are still in it) with Brisset (a QB that is a backup on ALL 32 teams and 3rd string on a few) is why this team is not years away. Just stupid talk!

Tannehill for example, not even on Lucks level but a hell of a lot better than Brisset takes this Colts team deep into the playoffs.

Fact is, a capable starting QB on this team makes them a playoff team. Anything close to Luck a contender for sure.

Stop the doom and gloom we are closer than you think.

[rm1369]

Reward those who excel in your system. That kind of an engine takes a few years to build, but should produce reliable performance once constructed.

Chaka, haven’t you been one of the guys arguing with me from the beginning when I said that Ballard’s plan was a 3-4 yr process?

He also signed two risky free agents - Funchess and Houston – to large (though short) contracts last off-season.

A great example of our different views on risk. To me, there was very little (almost zero) risk in those two signings. They stopped no move this year and have almost no risk for future years. 1 and 2 year contracts generally have very little risk when you are sitting on piles on salary cap space.

To suggest that we are further from a title now than when Ballard was hired seems ludicrous, particularly since you exclude Luck from this analysis. Go look at our 2017 roster, excluding Luck......

Roster is better in most areas, I won’t disagree at all. Just not at the positions most necessary for high level success. Yes, I think being a middle of the road franchise with no QB is a bad place to be. I’ll have to look up the numbers again, but every analysis I’ve ever seen suggests the percentages are better at the top of the draft, although obviously you can strike gold later.

I think that’s pretty unfair to say - 2 of the 3 positions you mentioned (QB and LT) were locked down prior to the season (albeit by people drafted pre-Ballard), and Ballard had no reason to think otherwise until the Luck retirement and the threat of a Castonzo retirement reared its head.

My comment on QB, LT, and pass rusher were not meant specifically as a knock on Ballard, more as a comment on the state of the roster and whether or not we should be happy that they could have almost conceivably backed in to a playoff spot - if things had went their way more during the second half of the season AND you ignore when things went their way during the first half of the season.

But again, I want to point out that while Castonzo considering retirement can seem like a huge surprise (just like Luck’s) it is exactly why I was against such a long term vision with (as you noted) 2 of the 3 most important positions seemingly in place. Shit changes quickly in the NFL.

Also, needing an eventual replacement for AC was talked about by plenty of people. Here is part of one of my posts regarding the drafting of Nelson. I love the guy. How could you not? But a lot of people at the time were concerned about the tackle position more than guard. An immediate upgrade at RT that could replace AC down the road was a viable option to improve the line. And would have added an additional piece with the trade back. I don’t want to turn this in to a Nelson debate - if ever a guard was worth the 6th pick it’s Nelson. I’m simply pointing out that it is not a huge surprise that tackle is a need. And for as great as Nelson is, the line hasn’t played great without a good LT (with AC out).


My point has simply been that Nelson was not the only option available to Ballard. Possibly not even the best. Even when taking into account his failure to address it previously. I’d say a good argument could be made that trading back and walking away with McGlinchey or Miller and then adding Smith would have improved the line tremendously as well. Many said predraft that tackle was the biggest issue for the line, so that’s not hindsight. And I could argue the long term outlook of the line would be brighter with a solid tackle in place to slide to the left side in a year or two. Or whenever Castonzo is hurt.

[Racehorse]

Chaka, haven’t you been one of the guys arguing with me from the beginning when I said that Ballard’s plan was a 3-4 yr process?



A great example of our different views on risk. To me, there was very little (almost zero) risk in those two signings. They stopped no move this year and have almost no risk for future years. 1 and 2 year contracts generally have very little risk when you are sitting on piles on salary cap space.



Roster is better in most areas, I won’t disagree at all. Just not at the positions most necessary for high level success. Yes, I think being a middle of the road franchise with no QB is a bad place to be. I’ll have to look up the numbers again, but every analysis I’ve ever seen suggests the percentages are better at the top of the draft, although obviously you can strike gold later.



My comment on QB, LT, and pass rusher were not meant specifically as a knock on Ballard, more as a comment on the state of the roster and whether or not we should be happy that they could have almost conceivably backed in to a playoff spot - if things had went their way more during the second half of the season AND you ignore when things went their way during the first half of the season.

But again, I want to point out that while Castonzo considering retirement can seem like a huge surprise (just like Luck’s) it is exactly why I was against such a long term vision with (as you noted) 2 of the 3 most important positions seemingly in place. Shit changes quickly in the NFL.

Also, needing an eventual replacement for AC was talked about by plenty of people. Here is part of one of my posts regarding the drafting of Nelson. I love the guy. How could you not? But a lot of people at the time were concerned about the tackle position more than guard. An immediate upgrade at RT that could replace AC down the road was a viable option to improve the line. And would have added an additional piece with the trade back. I don’t want to turn this in to a Nelson debate - if ever a guard was worth the 6th pick it’s Nelson. I’m simply pointing out that it is not a huge surprise that tackle is a need. And for as great as Nelson is, the line hasn’t played great without a good LT (with AC out).

You can't tell me that if Luck hadn't retired and if we had stayed healthy that this team couldn't have competed with the top of the league this year, or at least the top of the AFC. Ballard did it right, but things went very south for us from the day Luck retired all through the myriad of injuries, from Turay to TY.

[rm1369]

You can't tell me that if Luck hadn't retired and if we had stayed healthy that this team couldn't have competed with the top of the league this year, or at least the top of the AFC. Ballard did it right, but things went very south for us from the day Luck retired all through the myriad of injuries, from Turay to TY.

Racehorse, when I said the team is further away regardless of Luck I think I should have clarified. I didn’t mean with Luck on this current team they are further away (yes that would be a ridiculous statement), I meant if Luck had never came back from the shoulder injury. That was the concern at the time Ballard took the job - that Luck would never recover and was done. IIRC there were rumors of him considering retirement then. That’s what I’m referring to. And again, that wasn’t so much a knock on Ballard (I understand he wouldn’t be looking for a QB if he expected Luck to return) as a comment on the perceived optimism because of the mediocre season and facing an offseason with no QB, possibly no LT, and huge question marks on the pass rush.

I disagree that Ballard did it right though even when I agree Lucks retirement screwed him. They lost to KC in the playoffs largely because of holes that were evident before the season started. Ballard did little to address them because of his long term plan. And if Luck had played this year IMO Ballard still was rolling with the long term over what was lacking for this season. If they went to the AFC title game with Luck but lost because of a lack of a pass rush and poor interior DLine play, you’d be saying the plan was all working. I’d see it as a missed opportunity. Just the difference in our views.

Again, I’ll point out that the exact reason I believe in being more aggressive is because of how quickly it all changes. Did I expect Luck to retire because of an off season leg injury? Of course not. But I absolutely did realize he was always one play away from not being the Colts QB going forward. That’s why wasting seasons banking on guys like Tyquan Lewis, Terrell Basham, and Quincy Wilson pissed me off. It’s why I thought it was stupid to cut guys like Simons and Hankins. You don’t gift guys spots, you make them earn it. But Ballards plan wasn’t to put the best team he could out there last year or this year. It was to do exactly what Chaka said - build that supposed base for long term success. Sounds great, but don’t use the unpredictable nature of the NFL as an excuse when it’s the very reason I argued against that method.

[Racehorse]

Chaka, when I said the team is further away regardless of Luck I think I should have clarified. I didn’t mean with Luck on this current team they are further away (yes that would be a ridiculous statement), I meant if Luck had never came back from the shoulder injury. That was the concern at the time Ballard took the job - that Luck would never recover and was done. IIRC there were rumors of him considering retirement then. That’s what I’m referring to. And again, that wasn’t so much a knock on Ballard (I understand he wouldn’t be looking for a QB if he expected Luck to return) as a comment on the perceived optimism because of the mediocre season and facing an offseason with no QB, possibly no LT, and huge question marks on the pass rush.

Chaka?

[Chromeburn]

The constant talk that this team is years away from good is just plain stupid by some.

Fact is they were Super Bowl contenders if Luck had not retired.... and Luck wasn’t an elite QB.....yet.

The fact this team won 7 games (beat 3 playoff teams that are still in it) with Brisset (a QB that is a backup on ALL 32 teams and 3rd string on a few) is why this team is not years away. Just stupid talk!

Tannehill for example, not even on Lucks level but a hell of a lot better than Brisset takes this Colts team deep into the playoffs.

Fact is, a capable starting QB on this team makes them a playoff team. Anything close to Luck a contender for sure.

Stop the doom and gloom we are closer than you think.

It’s a constant, irritating, narrative that we are constantly rebuilding. Really we had a shot to win it all in Luck’s last year and if he stayed this year as well.

I don’t see any evidence that Ballard’s method is superior to any other team’s method. Grigson has more winning seasons than Ballard at this point in their careers and it was really due to having a franchise QB. Ultimately you have to win no matter how much everyone likes the guy and his strategy.

[rm1369]

Chaka?

Sorry, I fixed it after I seen it.

[rm1369]

It’s a constant, irritating, narrative that we are constantly rebuilding. Really we had a shot to win it all in Luck’s last year and if he stayed this year as well.

I don’t see any evidence that Ballard’s method is superior to any other team’s method. Grigson has more winning seasons than Ballard at this point in their careers and it was really due to having a franchise QB. Ultimately you have to win no matter how much everyone likes the guy and his strategy.

Seems the thinking is that if Grigson failed then doing the opposite must me the way to go. However, his plan was right. He just sucked as a talent evaluator and was an asshole. Ballard owes Grigson a huge thank you for the patience the fan base is willing to have after Grigson’s failures.

[rcubed]

so tua officially declared for the draft.

if he is available would you draft him assuming the doctors think he will make a full recovery? is he too much of a future-injury risk?

[rm1369]

so tua officially declared for the draft.

if he is available would you draft him assuming the doctors think he will make a full recovery? is he too much of a future-injury risk?

Absolutely. He seems a perfect fit with Reich. To me the question is how much are you willing to give up to go get him? I think you’d have to move up to the Giants spot at 4 to get him. 5, 6, 7 are all possibilities for a QB. That will take a lot of draft capital

[Spike]

so tua officially declared for the draft.

if he is available would you draft him assuming the doctors think he will make a full recovery? is he too much of a future-injury risk?

Absolutely would draft Tua, if healthy. Not a question in my mind.

[Luck4Reich]

Seems the thinking is that if Grigson failed then doing the opposite must me the way to go. However, his plan was right. He just sucked as a talent evaluator and was an asshole. Ballard owes Grigson a huge thank you for the patience the fan base is willing to have after Grigson’s failures.

The fan base will not be as patient as you think...

Ballard addressed the glaring problem the right way in the Oline where as Grigson kept throwing band-aids at it. The right QB in the next 1-2 years and I think we all fully understand his worth.

[Colt Classic]

Racehorse, when I said the team is further away regardless of Luck I think I should have clarified. I didn’t mean with Luck on this current team they are further away (yes that would be a ridiculous statement), I meant if Luck had never came back from the shoulder injury. That was the concern at the time Ballard took the job - that Luck would never recover and was done. IIRC there were rumors of him considering retirement then. That’s what I’m referring to. And again, that wasn’t so much a knock on Ballard (I understand he wouldn’t be looking for a QB if he expected Luck to return) as a comment on the perceived optimism because of the mediocre season and facing an offseason with no QB, possibly no LT, and huge question marks on the pass rush.

I disagree that Ballard did it right though even when I agree Lucks retirement screwed him. They lost to KC in the playoffs largely because of holes that were evident before the season started. Ballard did little to address them because of his long term plan. And if Luck had played this year IMO Ballard still was rolling with the long term over what was lacking for this season. If they went to the AFC title game with Luck but lost because of a lack of a pass rush and poor interior DLine play, you’d be saying the plan was all working. I’d see it as a missed opportunity. Just the difference in our views.

Again, I’ll point out that the exact reason I believe in being more aggressive is because of how quickly it all changes. Did I expect Luck to retire because of an off season leg injury? Of course not. But I absolutely did realize he was always one play away from not being the Colts QB going forward. That’s why wasting seasons banking on guys like Tyquan Lewis, Terrell Basham, and Quincy Wilson pissed me off. It’s why I thought it was stupid to cut guys like Simons and Hankins. You don’t gift guys spots, you make them earn it. But Ballards plan wasn’t to put the best team he could out there last year or this year. It was to do exactly what Chaka said - build that supposed base for long term success. Sounds great, but don’t use the unpredictable nature of the NFL as an excuse when it’s the very reason I argued against that method.

You forgot the use of two roster spots for long-term projects at WR, which became quite the problem when injuries hit. I've said it many times before, but a certain receiver who threw a touchdown pass this past weekend has been on the free agent market each of the past two years and would not have slowed any sort of long-term plan. If anything, having long-term projects on the roster slowed any real long-term growth at the receiver position.

[Dam8610]

Absolutely. He seems a perfect fit with Reich. To me the question is how much are you willing to give up to go get him? I think you’d have to move up to the Giants spot at 4 to get him. 5, 6, 7 are all possibilities for a QB. That will take a lot of draft capital

With his health questions, he might be available at 13. If the Colts doctors think he'll recover, he fits Reich's offense well. I think he has some accuracy questions beyond the injury, and that may be a reason not to draft him, but he does make NFL throws frequently.

[Chromeburn]

Seems the thinking is that if Grigson failed then doing the opposite must me the way to go. However, his plan was right. He just sucked as a talent evaluator and was an asshole. Ballard owes Grigson a huge thank you for the patience the fan base is willing to have after Grigson’s failures.

Yeah, if ultimately Grigson even hits on some of his picks we might have another Super Bowl. Hilton is the best pick he ever made. But he only went heavy FA bc he sucked at drafting.

Ballard has sold his plan well, wasn’t hard after the success Polian had. I like the guy. Seems like a good GM to play for. Kinda sucks he only had his most important piece for one year. Things have gotten infinitely more hard for him now. We have a patient fanbase, but not that patient.

[Chromeburn]

so tua officially declared for the draft.

if he is available would you draft him assuming the doctors think he will make a full recovery? is he too much of a future-injury risk?

It would have been stupid to go back. I would draft him. Every QB in this draft has some sort of question marks. He is very accurate, mobile, and doesn’t panic under pressure.

[Chromeburn]

With his health questions, he might be available at 13. If the Colts doctors think he'll recover, he fits Reich's offense well. I think he has some accuracy questions beyond the injury, and that may be a reason not to draft him, but he does make NFL throws frequently.

Why do you say that? I think he is very accurate and throws a beautiful deep ball.

[Chaka]

Chaka, haven’t you been one of the guys arguing with me from the beginning when I said that Ballard’s plan was a 3-4 yr process?

Kind of, I guess? While it will undoubtedly take time to get the kind of system that Ballard envisions in place, if you look back at our discussions I think what I took issue with was the suggestion or implication that we were doomed to also-ran status during that 3-4 year period. I don’t think that was the case at all. Upon Luck’s return the year after Ballard arrived, and after Pagano’s exit (who now admits he was in over his head), we were immediately a contender, it was just a question of how far we could get.

A great example of our different views on risk. To me, there was very little (almost zero) risk in those two signings. They stopped no move this year and have almost no risk for future years. 1 and 2 year contracts generally have very little risk when you are sitting on piles on salary cap space.

I think we're talking about different types of risk. Did those signings risk popping our salary cap? Absolutely not. Was Ballard sticking his neck out by signing a couple of guys to contracts that many thought were excessive? Yes he was, regardless of the length. He was signing two players who had issues (Funchess – unproductivity, Houston – age, injury). In that sense, they were both undeniably risky signings.

Roster is better in most areas, I won’t disagree at all. Just not at the positions most necessary for high level success. Yes, I think being a middle of the road franchise with no QB is a bad place to be. I’ll have to look up the numbers again, but every analysis I’ve ever seen suggests the percentages are better at the top of the draft, although obviously you can strike gold later.

Well, earlier draft picks are better, I cannot deny that. But I’m just saying that in recent years, it seems like teams in the mid-to-late part of the first round are increasingly able to find a franchise-type QB. I don’t know if colleges are preparing their QBs better for the NFL, if the offenses/rule changes have created more opportunities, or if the NFL has simply been slow to accept the idea of a successful QB who does not fit the traditional pocket-passer mold. It used to feel like a franchise QB drafted outside the top 2 or 3 picks was a rarity. Now it seems much more common. Strictly a subjective off-the-cuff observation, I admittedly have no data to back it up.

My comment on QB, LT, and pass rusher were not meant specifically as a knock on Ballard, more as a comment on the state of the roster and whether or not we should be happy that they could have almost conceivably backed in to a playoff spot - if things had went their way more during the second half of the season AND you ignore when things went their way during the first half of the season.

But again, I want to point out that while Castonzo considering retirement can seem like a huge surprise (just like Luck’s) it is exactly why I was against such a long term vision with (as you noted) 2 of the 3 most important positions seemingly in place. Shit changes quickly in the NFL.

Maybe so, but you have to plan and make assumptions about your players on any team, even one that jumps headfirst into the free agent fray. For example, it would have been ridiculous to use a high round pick on a QB when Luck was playing full time given the type of system we were trying to install. Same with Castonzo - knowing that we have him allows us to focus our attention elsewhere, where more immediate needs are present. Maybe we would have that luxury when Ballard’s plan was fully in place, but burning high draft picks on positions where we are already set does not seem the best use of our resources under the circumstances, and only delays implementation of the overall plan.

[rm1369]

The fan base will not be as patient as you think...

Ballard addressed the glaring problem the right way in the Oline where as Grigson kept throwing band-aids at it. The right QB in the next 1-2 years and I think we all fully understand his worth.

I’m not one to defend Grigson, but I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment. Ballard’s first offseason he did pretty much nothing to address the Oline. That’s coming after the known problems from the Grigson era. As I’ve said, Grigson’s main issue was he was a shitty talent evaluator. But he invested resources into the oline. In 5 drafts Grigson made 18 pics in rounds 1-4 (the range where most guys contribute). 5 of them were used on oline - (1) 1st - Kelly, (1) 2nd - Mewhort, (2) 3rd - Thornton and Clark, and (1) 4th - Holmes. In 3 drafts Ballard has made 17 pics in rounds 1-4. He’s invested 3 pics on the oline - (1) 1st - Nelson, (1) 2nd - Smith, and (1) 4th - Banner. I’m not sure what the “right way” is other than hitting on draft pics.

And before someone takes this as me somehow criticizing Ballard, I’m not. I’m simply trying to dispel this idea that Grigson’s method was somehow wrong. It wasn’t, he simply couldn’t do the most important aspect of the job - evaluate talent.

[JAFF]

I’m not one to defend Grigson, but I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment. Ballard’s first offseason he did pretty much nothing to address the Oline. That’s coming after the known problems from the Grigson era. As I’ve said, Grigson’s main issue was he was a shitty talent evaluator. But he invested resources into the oline. In 5 drafts Grigson made 18 pics in rounds 1-4 (the range where most guys contribute). 5 of them were used on oline - (1) 1st - Kelly, (1) 2nd - Mewhort, (2) 3rd - Thornton and Clark, and (1) 4th - Holmes. In 3 drafts Ballard has made 17 pics in rounds 1-4. He’s invested 3 pics on the oline - (1) 1st - Nelson, (1) 2nd - Smith, and (1) 4th - Banner. I’m not sure what the “right way” is other than hitting on draft pics.

And before someone takes this as me somehow criticizing Ballard, I’m not. I’m simply trying to dispel this idea that Grigson’s method was somehow wrong. It wasn’t, he simply couldn’t do the most important aspect of the job - evaluate talent.

I like that Ballard values certain skills and physiques for at certain positions. He doesnt use group think, he trusts his judgement. People thought he was nuts where he drafted Leonard and Nelson. He overcame that jackass from NE backing out of the HC position and hired Reich.

He’s got a plan an he doesnt make excuses.

[rm1369]

Maybe so, but you have to plan and make assumptions about your players on any team, even one that jumps headfirst into the free agent fray. For example, it would have been ridiculous to use a high round pick on a QB when Luck was playing full time given the type of system we were trying to install. Same with Castonzo - knowing that we have him allows us to focus our attention elsewhere, where more immediate needs are present. Maybe we would have that luxury when Ballard’s plan was fully in place, but burning high draft picks on positions where we are already set does not seem the best use of our resources under the circumstances, and only delays implementation of the overall plan.

What you are saying is true in general. However I’m not knocking Ballard for not having a replacement for Luck. My criticism has always been of essentially willingly wasting a year(s) with a franchise QB. It is very likely that from 2015 to 2022 that 2018 team will have been the closest to a title team the Colts have. So the best opportunity in a 7-8 year span was pissed away for a future that MAY come 4 years later. That is assuming he drafts a competent QB this year. In a league where the average career is 3.3 years that seems extremely wasteful to me. I get that he didn’t expect Luck to retire, but that to me is irrelevant. Luck admitted he considered retirement due to the shoulder and any player is one play away from retirement anyway. You’d think Colts fans of all people would understand how fragile it all is.

On AC it’s a little different. Again, I’m not criticizing Ballard for not having a great LT ready to step in. However, I won’t pretend like this has never been discussed or brought up. Going into the 2018 draft many said OT was the biggest OL need. Someone to play RT and then eventually slide in to the LT spot. I quoted one of my posts from the debates about Nelson where I said pretty much exactly that. So I’m not going to knock Ballard for it, but I’m also not going to pretend it was something he had no way or no reason to consider. If people on here are saying it then Ballard definitely sees it as well. He chose to draft admittedly a hell of an OG at 6 instead. But it was a decision he knowingly made.

[Chromeburn]

I like that Ballard values certain skills and physiques for at certain positions. He doesnt use group think, he trusts his judgement. People thought he was nuts where he drafted Leonard and Nelson. He overcame that jackass from NE backing out of the HC position and hired Reich.

He’s got a plan an he doesnt make excuses.

I don't know what group think you are referring to. He trusts his staff and leans on their evaluations.

This is kinda a false narrative that keeps popping up to make the picks seems all the more groundbreaking.

Nelson was the highest graded olineman coming out in years and was thought he would be an instant all-pro and one of the best guards in the league. People argued that the guard is not as important as other positions. You can still make that argument. But with the rise of dominant interior rushers, it has placed more importance on the interior of the oline to protect your QB. Also, if you are going to spend a top ten pick on a guard Nelson is the guy, he was the safest pick in years. Also, the Redskins took Sherff 5th overall and it turned out very well for them. There was precedent for the decision. Nelson fit a need and was really an easy pick. The decision was whether the pick should be used on another position.

As for Leonard, he was routinely the 4th or 5th rated linebacker on many draft rankings. He just suffered from playing at a small school. But his metrics measured just as well as the other top LB's. Also, Leonard's style is a very good scheme fot for this system. If kept clean he is allowed to run around and influence plays and use his long arms and speed. I think his performance surprised some people, but it wasn't like he was some guy suppossed to be drafted in the 7th round. He was recruited by Clemson, one of the most athletic and talented college teams in the country.

[rcubed]

What you are saying is true in general. However I’m not knocking Ballard for not having a replacement for Luck. My criticism has always been of essentially willingly wasting a year(s) with a franchise QB.
On the flip side, in the last few years the rams have gone all in to win now. Resigning their own guys to big contracts (goff, gurly, donald) and being very aggressive in signing FAs and trades (fowler, weddle, mathews, suh, ramsey, etc).

They got embarrassed in the SB and didnt make the playoffs this year. They dont have a ton of cap space and need to resign guys, specifically fowler and ramsey who will bring a big contracts.

Not necessarily the best way to go about it either.

[Racehorse]

What you are saying is true in general. However I’m not knocking Ballard for not having a replacement for Luck. My criticism has always been of essentially willingly wasting a year(s) with a franchise QB. It is very likely that from 2015 to 2022 that 2018 team will have been the closest to a title team the Colts have. So the best opportunity in a 7-8 year span was pissed away for a future that MAY come 4 years later. That is assuming he drafts a competent QB this year. In a league where the average career is 3.3 years that seems extremely wasteful to me. I get that he didn’t expect Luck to retire, but that to me is irrelevant. Luck admitted he considered retirement due to the shoulder and any player is one play away from retirement anyway. You’d think Colts fans of all people would understand how fragile it all is.

On AC it’s a little different. Again, I’m not criticizing Ballard for not having a great LT ready to step in. However, I won’t pretend like this has never been discussed or brought up. Going into the 2018 draft many said OT was the biggest OL need. Someone to play RT and then eventually slide in to the LT spot. I quoted one of my posts from the debates about Nelson where I said pretty much exactly that. So I’m not going to knock Ballard for it, but I’m also not going to pretend it was something he had no way or no reason to consider. If people on here are saying it then Ballard definitely sees it as well. He chose to draft admittedly a hell of an OG at 6 instead. But it was a decision he knowingly made.

On the bold part, I think you are using a stat that isn't relevant. Starters average closer to ten years in the league, whereas the bottom of the roster is what lowers that average. Make any argument you want about urgency, but make sure the data you offer is pertinent.

[Dam8610]

Why do you say that? I think he is very accurate and throws a beautiful deep ball.

He throws a great deep ball, but he's not the most accurate on some of the short to intermediate throws, and struggles against pressure. He's not going to have those 4+ second pockets he was in constantly at Alabama in the NFL.

[Oldcolt]

Does anybody have any interest in free agent qbs? Can Reich do some magic with like Winston?

[rm1369]

On the bold part, I think you are using a stat that isn't relevant. Starters average closer to ten years in the league, whereas the bottom of the roster is what lowers that average. Make any argument you want about urgency, but make sure the data you offer is pertinent.

Ok, that’s fair. Let’s look at it a different way. You mentioned starters so let’s look at depth charts. There are 2 players listed as starters for the Colts in 2015 that were listed as starters in 2019 (only considering the 22 players on O and D, no special teams). Those two are Castonzo and TY. Ok, well the Colts struggled during that period and had a GM change over so roster turnover is to be expected. So let’s look at 3 of the consistent winners over that time period. NE has 3, Steelers have 4, and Greenbay has 4. 3 of the most consistent winning teams in the league have only maintained 17% of their starters from 2015 to 2019. I can look at others if you want or shorten the time period (I used that span because it matches the 2018 to 2022 span I mentioned previously), but however you cut it the only consistent thing in the NFL is change.

[rm1369]

Does anybody have any interest in free agent qbs? Can Reich do some magic with like Winston?

Main two guys I’d have an interest in are Carr and Newton. I doubt either is available in free agency though and I wouldn’t be willing to trade much for either of them. I think both are a step up from Brissett, but I’m also fairly pessimistic about the long term success of a team without a franchise QB. Giving up much of anything for a QB below that level seems counter productive to me. I guess an argument could be made that to develop the WR group you at least need a QB that can get the ball out though so it would depend on the asking price.

Although their systems are completely different, I trust Arians assessment of a QB. If he’s willing to walk away from Winston then I’d pass.

[rcubed]

Does anybody have any interest in free agent qbs? Can Reich do some magic with like Winston?
no.

[Chaka]

What you are saying is true in general. However I’m not knocking Ballard for not having a replacement for Luck. My criticism has always been of essentially willingly wasting a year(s) with a franchise QB. It is very likely that from 2015 to 2022 that 2018 team will have been the closest to a title team the Colts have. So the best opportunity in a 7-8 year span was pissed away for a future that MAY come 4 years later. That is assuming he drafts a competent QB this year. In a league where the average career is 3.3 years that seems extremely wasteful to me. I get that he didn’t expect Luck to retire, but that to me is irrelevant. Luck admitted he considered retirement due to the shoulder and any player is one play away from retirement anyway. You’d think Colts fans of all people would understand how fragile it all is.

On AC it’s a little different. Again, I’m not criticizing Ballard for not having a great LT ready to step in. However, I won’t pretend like this has never been discussed or brought up. Going into the 2018 draft many said OT was the biggest OL need. Someone to play RT and then eventually slide in to the LT spot. I quoted one of my posts from the debates about Nelson where I said pretty much exactly that. So I’m not going to knock Ballard for it, but I’m also not going to pretend it was something he had no way or no reason to consider. If people on here are saying it then Ballard definitely sees it as well. He chose to draft admittedly a hell of an OG at 6 instead. But it was a decision he knowingly made.

I think that’s hyperbole. I don’t think he wasted a year by implementing his plan – we won a playoff game in a season where few thought we’d make the playoffs at all. If Ballard had spent more of that salary cap space in 2018, would we have had a better chance to beat the Chiefs? Maybe, but we’ll never know.

One of the problems with your argument is that it is premised upon the absolute certainty that this team would have been better and gone further in the playoffs if Ballard had implemented your plan and signed premium free agents instead of focusing on youth. While it’s certainly possible I don’t think that’s a certainty. Free agency is a bit of a minefield and we might well have ended up with a few bombs. Ryan Jenson and Andrew Norwell – two individuals we actively pursued with most people’s blessing here – haven’t nearly lived up to their lofty billing. In fact, here’s a pre-season article I found from March 2018 outlining the Indy Star’s view on the free agents we should pursue that offseason:

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2018/03/07/possible-free-agent-targets-colts-offense/402692002/

Who of these guys do you think would have made a difference in retrospect? Allen Robinson would have been nice, no doubt, but I don’t think the rest of these guys would have been an improvement over our current (younger and cheaper) roster members. And let’s not forget the “butterfly effect” of signing some additional veteran free agents – would we have Quinton Nelson or Darius Leonard? Hines? What about DION F’ING CAIN? (oh, wait…)

All thing considered, and in retrospect, I’m happy with the path Ballard chose, even through we lost in the divisional round last season. I think we did about as well as any of us could have reasonably expected at the beginning of the 2018 offseason – with our without more free agent signings.

[Chaka]

On the flip side, in the last few years the rams have gone all in to win now. Resigning their own guys to big contracts (goff, gurly, donald) and being very aggressive in signing FAs and trades (fowler, weddle, mathews, suh, ramsey, etc).

They got embarrassed in the SB and didnt make the playoffs this year. They dont have a ton of cap space and need to resign guys, specifically fowler and ramsey who will bring a big contracts.

Not necessarily the best way to go about it either.

Excellent example Rcubed. Thank you.

[Dam8610]

Does anybody have any interest in free agent qbs? Can Reich do some magic with like Winston?

I'd prefer Bridgewater, and I think the Colts could go far with him at QB.

[rm1369]

On the flip side, in the last few years the rams have gone all in to win now. Resigning their own guys to big contracts (goff, gurly, donald) and being very aggressive in signing FAs and trades (fowler, weddle, mathews, suh, ramsey, etc).

They got embarrassed in the SB and didnt make the playoffs this year. They dont have a ton of cap space and need to resign guys, specifically fowler and ramsey who will bring a big contracts.

Not necessarily the best way to go about it either.

Fair enough, although:

1) I wouldn’t consider Goff at the franchise QB level. To me he doesn’t carry the team the way those guys do. He’s a decent QB on a good team. If a new GM took over KC and decided he was rebuilding the roster over 3-4 years it would be comparable. Seattle turned over their roster with Wilson. They didn’t wait to replace nearly every need in the draft. That’s more comparable.

2) Any discussion of spending money or bringing in vets and guys on here go to the most extreme examples they can find as the only comparisons. I’ve not once went off because we didn’t trade for the newest “star” that’s being moved or sign the highest price free agent. But if you think Ballard adequately addressed the WR position before the 2018 season then we simply won’t agree on anything. And I’ll point out - guess what one of the top needs going into 2020 is? Yeah, WR. It’s hard af to address every need through the draft or with a bargain.

3) After the 2018 season Ballard essentially said the team came together quicker than he thought. If he realized they would have been that good do you think he’d have done more? I do. And after this season he admitted erring by getting rid of some of the vets. That sounds pretty similar to what I’ve complained about - forcing youth for the long term gain over what vets bring this year.

[rm1369]

I think that’s hyperbole. I don’t think he wasted a year by implementing his plan – we won a playoff game in a season where few thought we’d make the playoffs at all. If Ballard had spent more of that salary cap space in 2018, would we have had a better chance to beat the Chiefs? Maybe, but we’ll never know.

One of the problems with your argument is that it is premised upon the absolute certainty that this team would have been better and gone further in the playoffs if Ballard had implemented your plan and signed premium free agents instead of focusing on youth. While it’s certainly possible I don’t think that’s a certainty. Free agency is a bit of a minefield and we might well have ended up with a few bombs. Ryan Jenson and Andrew Norwell – two individuals we actively pursued with most people’s blessing here – haven’t nearly lived up to their lofty billing. In fact, here’s a pre-season article I found from March 2018 outlining the Indy Star’s view on the free agents we should pursue that offseason:

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2018/03/07/possible-free-agent-targets-colts-offense/402692002/

Who of these guys do you think would have made a difference in retrospect? Allen Robinson would have been nice, no doubt, but I don’t think the rest of these guys would have been an improvement over our current (younger and cheaper) roster members. And let’s not forget the “butterfly effect” of signing some additional veteran free agents – would we have Quinton Nelson or Darius Leonard? Hines? What about DION F’ING CAIN? (oh, wait…)

All thing considered, and in retrospect, I’m happy with the path Ballard chose, even through we lost in the divisional round last season. I think we did about as well as any of us could have reasonably expected at the beginning of the 2018 offseason – with our without more free agent signings.

Chaka, I get it - I’m not going to sway you at all. I can’t prove that anything would have been better and I can’t prove that anything good that has happened would have still happened. It’s a game that I can’t win. Pretty much the exact concern I had (the unpredictable nature of the NFL) rocked the franchise (Lucks retirement) and they may be facing a similar situation (AC retiring) this offseason. I complained about a 3-4 year rebuild and we are now entering year 4 and the dynasty is no where in sight. I complained about a 1 yr deal for Funchess because I didn’t believe it solved anything at WR. He played one game, WR is still a mess and whether or not he comes back next year is up in the air. It doesn’t matter what is said or what happens your opinion isn’t going to change. And considering where the team is mine sure as hell isn’t either. So the discussion is pointless.

[Colts And Orioles]

o


ESPN's "NFL Nation" has a blurb for all 32 teams ........ Mike Wells specifically has one for the Colts.


Indianapolis Colts


Revamp its group of pass-catchers. T.Y. Hilton, the team's No. 1 option, will be 31 next season. Devin Funchess, who didn't even play a full game this season, is a free agent. Parris Campbell, a 2019 second-round pick, played only seven games because of injuries. Tight end Eric Ebron is a free agent, and the Colts have very little interest in re-signing him. You get the picture. Zach Pascal was leading receiver (607 yards) for the Colts, who finished 30th in the NFL with just 196 passing yards per game. There's a chance that quarterback Jacoby Brissett remains the starter, despite his struggles late in the season, but Indianapolis needs to help him out ........ GM Chris Ballard has admitted as much.

--- Mike Wells



Biggest 2020 Off-Season Needs for all 32 NFL Teams

(By NFL Nation)

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28429717/biggest-2020-offseason-needs-all-32-nfl-teams

o

[Brylok]

Does anybody have any interest in free agent qbs? Can Reich do some magic with like Winston?

Nah. It's gonna be JB again. Batten down the hatches...

[Chromeburn]

Nah. It's gonna be JB again. Batten down the hatches...

ooohhh Boy. Trevor Lawrence 2021? Says about every bad team's fanbase next season.

[Spike]

Does anybody have any interest in free agent qbs? Can Reich do some magic with like Winston?

I don't care at all for Winston. He's a punk ass, interception throwing machine. Doubt even Reich can fix him.

[Colt Classic]

On the flip side, in the last few years the rams have gone all in to win now. Resigning their own guys to big contracts (goff, gurly, donald) and being very aggressive in signing FAs and trades (fowler, weddle, mathews, suh, ramsey, etc).

They got embarrassed in the SB and didnt make the playoffs this year. They dont have a ton of cap space and need to resign guys, specifically fowler and ramsey who will bring a big contracts.

Not necessarily the best way to go about it either.

The Rams are an extreme example since they had to make a splash for their debut in LA. Do you think they could sell Ballard's plan as they arrive in LA?

A closer parallel is the Bears. They went for it with the Mack trade, their QB situation is similarly screwed up, Mack and the defense led them to a nice season last year, but a sub-par season this year, mainly due to the lack of play-makers on offense. If I was a fan of the Bears, I wouldn't regret the team going for it with the Mack trade. Sure, he's making a lot of money, but he's exactly the kind of rare game-changer who the Colts are forever chasing through the draft, as opposed to parting with a few draft picks and having that issue solved for the next 4-5 years AND using the remaining picks to find complementary players who would be that much better since they step in day one next to a difference-maker.

It's easy to say, "well the Bears didn't win a Super Bowl, so such a risky move wasn't wise and now they're up against the cap". You gotta spend the money on someone, might as well be an impactful someone.

[Chaka]

Chaka, I get it - I’m not going to sway you at all. I can’t prove that anything would have been better and I can’t prove that anything good that has happened would have still happened. It’s a game that I can’t win. Pretty much the exact concern I had (the unpredictable nature of the NFL) rocked the franchise (Lucks retirement) and they may be facing a similar situation (AC retiring) this offseason. I complained about a 3-4 year rebuild and we are now entering year 4 and the dynasty is no where in sight. I complained about a 1 yr deal for Funchess because I didn’t believe it solved anything at WR. He played one game, WR is still a mess and whether or not he comes back next year is up in the air. It doesn’t matter what is said or what happens your opinion isn’t going to change. And considering where the team is mine sure as hell isn’t either. So the discussion is pointless.

I’m sorry to hear that. My opinion can and has changed in response to opinions expressed on this board, but I agree not in this instance. I understand your position, and it’s perfectly fair and reasonable, but I just happen to disagree. Your argument would be more convincing to me if the Colts were mired in a series of losing seasons, with little evidence of progress and we were being asked to simply trust Ballard on his word and vision. Then I would understand all the teeth-gnashing and frustration.

But that’s not what has happened here. There are plenty of signs that Ballard’s plan was working. Yes, the plan has been seriously damaged by major unexpected – and in some ways unheard of – events such as the Luck retirement. And yes, I agree things are always changing and unpredictable in the NFL. But the Luck retirement goes a little beyond that and its kind of uncharted territory – a marquee player in the prime of his career at the sport’s most important position who is abruptly eliminated from the equation permanently. That’s not within the realm of normal NFL “not for long” events. Sorry, it just isn’t. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I really can’t think of a comparable event off the top of my head – maybe the Theismann injury, but he was pretty late into his career at the time if I’m not mistaken.

Anyway, ultimately our debates always seem to come back a core philosophical difference regarding the proper time horizon the Colts should focus upon. It seems to me you are more of a “win now” guy because you believe competitive windows are usually brief, and I am more in the camp of believing that it's realistic to build a team that can maintain a high level of sustained success that spans several years. That’s our primary disagreement at the end of the day.

[Chaka]

The Rams are an extreme example since they had to make a splash for their debut in LA. Do you think they could sell Ballard's plan as they arrive in LA?

A closer parallel is the Bears. They went for it with the Mack trade, their QB situation is similarly screwed up, Mack and the defense led them to a nice season last year, but a sub-par season this year, mainly due to the lack of play-makers on offense. If I was a fan of the Bears, I wouldn't regret the team going for it with the Mack trade. Sure, he's making a lot of money, but he's exactly the kind of rare game-changer who the Colts are forever chasing through the draft, as opposed to parting with a few draft picks and having that issue solved for the next 4-5 years AND using the remaining picks to find complementary players who would be that much better since they step in day one next to a difference-maker.

It's easy to say, "well the Bears didn't win a Super Bowl, so such a risky move wasn't wise and now they're up against the cap". You gotta spend the money on someone, might as well be an impactful someone.

The Bears aren't really comparable in my view. To begin with, we didn't have a screwed up QB situation in the time frame we've been discussing. We're talking about the window that opened in 2018 when Luck returned. The Bears don't have a Luck.

Second, we aren't talking about the Colts failing to trade for a specific player at the cost of future draft picks - that's an entirely different analysis than the decision to sign free agents. Usually, guys like Mack aren't available through free agency.

Third, your timeline is off with the Rams. They moved to L.A. in 2016, and ended up 4-12 after picking Goff with the first pick in the draft. they didn't really start their free agent splurge until around 2018 (Suh), when they made a Super Bowl run. So I think they are a much better comparable to the Colts and the philosophy that some here have advocated.

For the record, I don't think trading future draft picks for a star player in his prime is necessarily a bad idea. Mack has been a good addition, no question. My problem with those type of trades is that often people look only at the quality of the star player and ignore the business implications - usually you have to sign the player to a market-value contract as part of such a trade, so there are implications for the team beyond the on the field performance. That said, unique players are often worth more than market rates, so I'm not against that idea. I haven't seen any indication that Ballard thinks this way yet though.

[rcubed]

Fair enough, although:

1) I wouldn’t consider Goff at the franchise QB level. To me he doesn’t carry the team the way those guys do. He’s a decent QB on a good team. If a new GM took over KC and decided he was rebuilding the roster over 3-4 years it would be comparable. Seattle turned over their roster with Wilson. They didn’t wait to replace nearly every need in the draft. That’s more comparable.

2) Any discussion of spending money or bringing in vets and guys on here go to the most extreme examples they can find as the only comparisons. I’ve not once went off because we didn’t trade for the newest “star” that’s being moved or sign the highest price free agent. But if you think Ballard adequately addressed the WR position before the 2018 season then we simply won’t agree on anything. And I’ll point out - guess what one of the top needs going into 2020 is? Yeah, WR. It’s hard af to address every need through the draft or with a bargain.

3) After the 2018 season Ballard essentially said the team came together quicker than he thought. If he realized they would have been that good do you think he’d have done more? I do. And after this season he admitted erring by getting rid of some of the vets. That sounds pretty similar to what I’ve complained about - forcing youth for the long term gain over what vets bring this year.
similarly you dont seem to take into account that ballard has been in on many FAs that eventually went to another team. ballard has a value for a player and once the price goes beyond that he is out. that shows diligence in sticking to his process. I guess you could say that maybe his threshold is too low, but its not like he does nothing, and in the mean time he hasn't strapped the team with bad players with bad contracts.

[rm1369]

.... I would understand all the teeth-gnashing and frustration.

I want to make sure it’s clear that I like Ballard and I didn’t start this conversation complaining about him. It’s started because of a comment I made to dam about not seeing Ballard signing Bridgewater for big money or spending enough draft capital to move up significantly in the draft. Just doesn’t match his previous comments or actions, but either way I didn’t jump in bashing Ballard and really haven’t intended to.


Anyway, ultimately our debates always seem to come back a core philosophical difference regarding the proper time horizon the Colts should focus upon. It seems to me you are more of a “win now” guy because you believe competitive windows are usually brief, and I am more in the camp of believing that it's realistic to build a team that can maintain a high level of sustained success that spans several years. That’s our primary disagreement at the end of the day.

You are correct that our debates always come down to philosophical differences, however I want to point out that I’m not a always a “win now” guy. I’m only that when there is a true franchise QB in place. To me a true franchise QB just means that much. He puts you around .500 with a shitty roster. He gives you a chance to win any game you play. And he’s one hot streak from putting you in the SB or at least the AFCCG with minimal help. That is the importance of the position. IMO Polian gave away SBs trying to maintain greatness. Ted Thompson did similar in GB. Both teams would have done better to have had higher peaks and lower valleys because the QB would always allow for a very quick bounce back. That allows you to take more risks IMO.

Without that guy in place then I’m not a “win now” guy. I’m a find a “true franchise QB” guy. And I’m down for patience. In a previous thread I said Ballard didn’t absolutely have to fix the QB situation this offseason, because it’s more important to get it right than it is to get someone quickly. However that also means that I don’t think the Colts will be true contenders for a few more years. That’s why I look at that 2018 season as a major missed opportunity - it’s going to be a few years before they have that opportunity again with a franchise QB (not just make the playoffs with an ok QB). You’ve mentioned several times that no one expected anything from that 2018 team, but that’s not accurate. They were in a great position with a returning franchise QB, very high draft pick that would net a difference make or two or three, tons of cap space, and ditching Pagano. I wasn’t pessimistic until I saw the direction Ballard was going.

[rcubed]

So the rumor-mill/what-if generators have been spewing a lot of tom brady to the colts. I highly doubt that would come to fruition, but I was wondering what if it actually did. How would that be accepted in colts land? If tom-terrific signed a two year deal and we draft someone to sit behind him. Would there be full riots in the streets? Would fans eventually calm and then root unconditionally?

I dont think I would want him, even taking the history out of the equation.

[rm1369]

similarly you dont seem to take into account that ballard has been in on many FAs that eventually went to another team. ballard has a value for a player and once the price goes beyond that he is out. that shows diligence in sticking to his process. I guess you could say that maybe his threshold is too low, but its not like he does nothing, and in the mean time he hasn't strapped the team with bad players with bad contracts.

I understand Ballard has tried on some players he missed on. That happens with all GMs. Yeah I think Ballard was more fiscally conservative than he should have been when Luck was (or was supposed to be) the QB. However, that’s not the only part of the argument. It was also the forced youth movement. However you want to cut it Ballard was playing more for the future than I think he should have been. If you were happy with what he did in 2018 and was doing for 2019 (before Luck retired) then great. I wasn’t. Now that the team has no QB and possibly no LT, and huge question marks on the pass rush I’m in agreement with everyone - there is no rush. But when Luck was on the roster I simply believed there should have been a sense of urgency that most here don’t seem to agree with.

[Chromeburn]

similarly you dont seem to take into account that ballard has been in on many FAs that eventually went to another team. ballard has a value for a player and once the price goes beyond that he is out. that shows diligence in sticking to his process. I guess you could say that maybe his threshold is too low, but its not like he does nothing, and in the mean time he hasn't strapped the team with bad players with bad contracts.

However, Ballard has entered each season with glaring holes that end up hurting the team. Reserving spots for developmental players because your draft method values top athletes that need coaching and skill technique. Now we missed a window because he doesn't have any sense of urgency. Dynasties are very rare and just assuming you are going to build one with your prescribed method is a little arrogant. How many dynasties has everyone seen just in their lifetime?

Whatever your prescribed method for acquiring talent (FA, draft, trades), you have to hit on it. He helps mitigate the failure rate of the draft by using a volume approach, which is smart, but he also picks a lot of projects. Turay, Banagu, Ya-Sin, Cambell, Lewis, Fountain, Cain, etc. He could get resonable FA's to fill those spots, but he doesn't want FA guys taking snaps from his picks which could hurt their potential. We missed out on several rookie WR's that could have contributed NOW, not in three years of coaching; Brown, Metcalf, Samuel, McLaurin. You can't tell me they didn't have those guys scouted. They chose Ya-sin because he was the only guy that was able to slow down Samuel and McLaurin at the senior bowl. They were torching everyone! Still we drafted a guy that had great physical traits and worked out of the slot, but also had just a few catches past 10 yards the entire year. Last year was a strong DT draft and he ignores the position, passes on a DE due to health concerns who ended up having a great year. Now we need a DT more than ever in a weaker DT draft, but QB, LT, and DE are still sitting there.

Ballard doesn't have to sign every huge FA out there, but he shuts down too early for his bargain shopping method. That is the nature of FA, you over spend some. Does he think his own upcoming FA's will be bargain signings as well? Some of his best talent acquisitions have been FA signings.

Also dynasties start at the QB position. Unless you have that, you aren't building anything.

And yes the Luck retirement was out of the blue, but his injury history was not. His career was in danger from an lengthy injury history which was kinda ignored. Plenty of careers have been cut short by injury. Maybe we thought he would be fine bc Peyton was an iron man. But we spent the lowest amount of capital on the QB postion of just about any team in the league since we drafted Luck. Other teams were investing in the position, we acquired Brisset and that was it. Bad foresight. Now the writing is on the wall with Hilton, will they pay attention?

[rm1369]

Also dynasties start at the QB position. Unless you have that, you aren't building anything.

This is really the crux of it all. With a franchise QB you are never really far away. Without one you are simply treading water (at best) long term.

[Chromeburn]

This is really the crux of it all. With a franchise QB you are never really far away. Without one you are simply treading water (at best) long term.

Right, you might be able to build a team despite not having one, be competitive, and win one SB. But you need HOF players at a lot of other positions, and those teams usually just win once. Want a dynasty with multiple SB's? QB is your building block you base that off of. Doesn't mean you have to be a passing dominant team, you can build a team in different ways, but you need that piece.

[Chromeburn]

He throws a great deep ball, but he's not the most accurate on some of the short to intermediate throws, and struggles against pressure. He's not going to have those 4+ second pockets he was in constantly at Alabama in the NFL.

I will disagree with that. I think accuracy and decision making are his best traits, plus he is familiar with RPO. I really like him for us.

[rm1369]

I will disagree with that. I think accuracy and decision making are his best traits, plus he is familiar with RPO. I really like him for us.

I agree with this. I admittedly don’t watch a ton of college ball, but everything I’ve seen on Tua makes me think he’s a great fit. As you noted accuracy and decision making are routinely two of the strengths I’ve seen from him. And, IMO, those are the two most important qualities for a QB. Know where the ball should go and being able to throw accurately enough to get it there. Other qualities are important as well but without those two I don’t think you can be elite. It’s going to be interesting to see where Ballard goes with this. The supposed infatuation with Love, his involvement in selecting Mahomes, and his known emphasis on measurable for other positions leaves me a little concerned about what he’s looking for in a QB.

[Chromeburn]

I agree with this. I admittedly don’t watch a ton of college ball, but everything I’ve seen on Tua makes me think he’s a great fit. As you noted accuracy and decision making are routinely two of the strengths I’ve seen from him. And, IMO, those are the two most important qualities for a QB. Know where the ball should go and being able to throw accurately enough to get it there. Other qualities are important as well but without those two I don’t think you can be elite. It’s going to be interesting to see where Ballard goes with this. The supposed infatuation with Love, his involvement in selecting Mahomes, and his known emphasis on measurable for other positions leaves me a little concerned about what he’s looking for in a QB.

We will likely have to move into the top ten to get him. We have the draft capital to do it. Will Ballard do it though?

In 2018 Tua was rated the most accurate passer in the power 5 conferences. In 2019 I think he was rated 4th. I believe Burrow has the bets season ever and Fromm fwas over him. Still very very good and his deep ball was rated the best I believe.

His turnover passing rate is about 3.1% which is inline with the top ten QB picks over the last couple years.

I think he is fine in the pocket and has faced the best pass rushers in the country in the SEC. They usually have the best defensive linemen.

The injury is the only concern of mine. If drafted he could sit and heal behind Brisset. I think it is a no-brianer.

[rm1369]

We will likely have to move into the top ten to get him. We have the draft capital to do it. Will Ballard do it though?

In 2018 Tua was rated the most accurate passer in the power 5 conferences. In 2019 I think he was rated 4th. I believe Burrow has the bets season ever and Fromm fwas over him. Still very very good and his deep ball was rated the best I believe.

His turnover passing rate is about 3.1% which is inline with the top ten QB picks over the last couple years.

I think he is fine in the pocket and has faced the best pass rushers in the country in the SEC. They usually have the best defensive linemen.

The injury is the only concern of mine. If drafted he could sit and heal behind Brisset. I think it is a no-brianer.

I think they’d likely have to go to 4 to get him. 5, 6, and 7 are likely QB spots. If his hip injury doesn’t throw up major flags then I don’t see him making it past those 3, and really I doubt Miami passes at 5. Giants are also a team that a trade back seems to make sense for. Trade value chart shows the 4th pic being worth 1800 points and the the 13th and 34th combine for 1710. So 13th, 34th + ? I’d guess they’d at least want 44 too. Possibly more. Knowing how much Ballard values picks I just don’t see him pulling the trigger on that.

[Chromeburn]

I think they’d likely have to go to 4 to get him. 5, 6, and 7 are likely QB spots. If his hip injury doesn’t throw up major flags then I don’t see him making it past those 3, and really I doubt Miami passes at 5. Giants are also a team that a trade back seems to make sense for. Trade value chart shows the 4th pic being worth 1800 points and the the 13th and 34th combine for 1710. So 13th, 34th + ? I’d guess they’d at least want 44 too. Possibly more. Knowing how much Ballard values picks I just don’t see him pulling the trigger on that.

I agree, 4 is the spot you target. And hope the Dolphins don't catch wind because they have been interested in Tua for a long time.

Well a franchise QB is worth that. If you hit, in a couple years you don't care. If he misses, he likely will be out of the job by that point. But a couple more picks don't usually add up to the value of a franchise QB. Sure they could be all pro's like Leonard, or they could be Quincy Wilson's. Need thazt building block though, it influences so many things. FA interest, fanbase interest, marketing and advertising, game and schedule exposure. I think it is completely necessary for a small market team. So yeah, to me, one or two less picks is worth it.

Ballard has said he likes the draft to come to him. However, if you need a QB and you are picking in the middle of the draft, you have to be aggressive. I think he knows this though. Question is does he like Tua enough to do it. Rumor was they liked Jeffrey Simmons last draft, I wish they had moved up for him. He fell because of injury, but not as far as some had hoped.

[DragonTails]

So the rumor-mill/what-if generators have been spewing a lot of tom brady to the colts. I highly doubt that would come to fruition, but I was wondering what if it actually did. How would that be accepted in colts land? If tom-terrific signed a two year deal and we draft someone to sit behind him. Would there be full riots in the streets? Would fans eventually calm and then root unconditionally?


gfy for posting that.

[rm1369]

I agree, 4 is the spot you target. And hope the Dolphins don't catch wind because they have been interested in Tua for a long time.

Well a franchise QB is worth that. If you hit, in a couple years you don't care. If he misses, he likely will be out of the job by that point. But a couple more picks don't usually add up to the value of a franchise QB. Sure they could be all pro's like Leonard, or they could be Quincy Wilson's. Need thazt building block though, it influences so many things. FA interest, fanbase interest, marketing and advertising, game and schedule exposure. I think it is completely necessary for a small market team. So yeah, to me, one or two less picks is worth it.

Ballard has said he likes the draft to come to him. However, if you need a QB and you are picking in the middle of the draft, you have to be aggressive. I think he knows this though. Question is does he like Tua enough to do it. Rumor was they liked Jeffrey Simmons last draft, I wish they had moved up for him. He fell because of injury, but not as far as some had hoped.

I don’t disagree - if Tua is a franchise guy then he’s well worth those picks. I just still have a hard time seeing Ballard pull the trigger. I realize he’s not going to come out and tip his hand, but his comments about pushing for a guy, missing, and setting you back 4-5 years really sounds to me like he’s setting up his reasons to not go get one. I’m certain the leaked reason why will be questions about the player, not that he didn’t like giving up picks though. I fully expect Ballard to take one of the guys out of the top 3 where the cost isn’t so high. I’m not saying that’s the right way to go (unless you hit on the pick like KC did with Mahomes) but that seems much more like his MO and matches with his previous comments.

I’ll add that I could maybe see him move up a few spots where the cost is less if Tua or Herbert falls some.

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

I hope fromm declares. We could likely get a dt in the first and then trade up to get fromm in the early second. I like his decisiveness and accuracy. If anything he holds on the the ball a bit too long.



Your wish has been granted. Fromm declared today for the 2020 draft via tweet (https://twitter.com/FrommJake/status/1214978281314934784).


https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1214980432544092160

Georgia QB Jake Fromm has officially declared for the 2020 NFL Draft.

[Luck4Reich]

Watched some of Jacob Eason. He has a good arm and seems to get rid of the ball very quick. Seen some Mocks having us getting him with our 3rd overall pick

[Dam8610]

Watched some of Jacob Eason. He has a good arm and seems to get rid of the ball very quick. Seen some Mocks having us getting him with our 3rd overall pick

Getting Eason at 45 might end up like Seattle getting Wilson at 75. I thought Wilson was the second best QB in the 2012 draft, and at this point I'd rank Eason ahead of Tua, though it's very early in the process.

[Chromeburn]

Getting Eason at 45 might end up like Seattle getting Wilson at 75. I thought Wilson was the second best QB in the 2012 draft, and at this point I'd rank Eason ahead of Tua, though it's very early in the process.

What do you like about Eason? He certainly looks the part, height, size, arm strength, and seems to have a lot of raw tools to work with. He worries me a bit b/c every time I saw him he folded under pressure badly. Colorado just destroyed him and they were not a great team last year.

[Spike]

Getting Eason at 45 might end up like Seattle getting Wilson at 75. I thought Wilson was the second best QB in the 2012 draft, and at this point I'd rank Eason ahead of Tua, though it's very early in the process.

IMHO, Tua is a better QB than Eason. Tua's injury history scares the hell out of me though. But hell, I might be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

[Chromeburn]

IMHO, Tua is a better QB than Eason. Tua's injury history scares the hell out of me though. But hell, I might be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Eason is more of a project. Tua is certainly more ready now. In three years who knows. Each QB has his flaws in this draft. Problem is fans see the word potential and automatically jump to the best possible scenario. High ceiling guys always scare me a bit, I tend to lean towards the guy who has done it college more. When it was Peyton vs Leaf I was very much in the Peyton camp. And I was very much in the Luck camp bc the way Griffin ran I thought he took uncessary risks. Turns out both did, just one lasted longer.

[rm1369]

Eason is more of a project. Tua is certainly more ready now. In three years who knows. Each QB has his flaws in this draft. Problem is fans see the word potential and automatically jump to the best possible scenario. High ceiling guys always scare me a bit, I tend to lean towards the guy who has done it college more. When it was Peyton vs Leaf I was very much in the Peyton camp. And I was very much in the Luck camp bc the way Griffin ran I thought he took uncessary risks. Turns out both did, just one lasted longer.

What’s your opinion of Herbert?

[Dam8610]

What do you like about Eason? He certainly looks the part, height, size, arm strength, and seems to have a lot of raw tools to work with. He worries me a bit b/c every time I saw him he folded under pressure badly. Colorado just destroyed him and they were not a great team last year.

Watch him throw a back shoulder fade or a 15 yard out. The accuracy and ball placement are ridiculously good. I'll watch the Colorado tape now that you mentioned that, but I watched four games of his and came away impressed, even when he was pressured.

[Chromeburn]

What’s your opinion of Herbert?

I don’t have questions about his leadership, I think he is just more quiet than some. But that team responded to him in his bowl game so I think they do like and respect him.

I think Oregon was hamstrung by their offensive system some. It’s not that good and uses a lot of horizontal passing. They had better RBs than wr’s. I think they could have molded the system around him more. He is accurate around the short to intermediate range, makes good decisions generally. Arm strength should be good enough. They just don’t throw deep much. He is smart and won the academic heisman, 4.01 gpa. So he should do things like make line calls which he did not do in college.

He was meh against Auburn, but great in his bowl game. He finished the second half of the season strong and played well to close out the year. His rating went up because of it. He is just inconsistent for me and it just seems something is missing. He could be suffering from over analysis, he has been around awhile. I want to see how he does at the senior bowl and combine.

[Colt Classic]

For the cost, I'd rather spend a lower pick on Eason than a higher pick on Herbert or Tua. The Colts basically have a free year coming up with minimal expectations from the QB position. Even if they absolutely strike out with the Eason pick, is he that much more of a wasted pick than an up & down 2nd round pick like Ya-Sin was this past year? /shrug, just try again next year if a mid-2nd doesn't progress fast enough.

[rm1369]

For the cost, I'd rather spend a lower pick on Eason than a higher pick on Herbert or Tua. The Colts basically have a free year coming up with minimal expectations from the QB position. Even if they absolutely strike out with the Eason pick, is he that much more of a wasted pick than an up & down 2nd round pick like Ya-Sin was this past year? /shrug, just try again next year if a mid-2nd doesn't progress fast enough.

The Colts don’t just need an improvement at QB, they need a franchise QB. There is no need to draft anyone that you don’t believe with a high degree of confidence can be that guy. You don’t draft Eason in the 2nd and then draft someone else next year. If you draft him then you are investing several years into developing him.

Ballard needs to identify the one or two guys in this draft he’s willing to stake his job on and go get one of them. Or take a DT or OT (maybe WR I guess) at 13 and look to push at least one of the 2nd rounders into the future so he has ammo to go get the guy next year. Trading this years number one for ammo next year works to I suppose. But you don’t just take a QB high and then plan to try again next year. Whoever you draft is your guy for at least 3 years IMO.

(To be clear - I’m not suggesting Ballard will or even should be fired if his QB doesn’t pan out, but it’s simply reality that how he handles the QB position will have more impact on his success or failure than any other single decision he makes)

[Chaka]

You don’t draft Eason in the 2nd and then draft someone else next year. If you draft him then you are investing several years into developing him.

Ballard needs to identify the one or two guys in this draft he’s willing to stake his job on and go get one of them. Or take a DT or OT (maybe WR I guess) at 13 and look to push at least one of the 2nd rounders into the future so he has ammo to go get the guy next year.

I think if the guy is there this year that Ballard wants and can realistically get, this is the year to draft a QB. Everything is positioned perfectly for this - we still have Brissett under contract for a year, we can get rid of Hoyer without much impact on the cap, we have some additional ammo to trade up (Washington's 2nd rounder), expectations have been lowered, etc. Also, though this view may not be widely shared because we closed out the season so weakly, but I'm not confident we'll be drafting this high next year. We are still a very young and improving team.

[albany ed]

This team certainly needs an upgrade at QB. Draft, free agency, something has to happen. I'll be disappointed if Brissett is the starter all next year.

[Chromeburn]

This team certainly needs an upgrade at QB. Draft, free agency, something has to happen. I'll be disappointed if Brissett is the starter all next year.

He will probably be the starter Ed, unless we go FA. It just a matter of will they draft a young guy to maybe sit for a year behind him.

[rm1369]

I think if the guy is there this year that Ballard wants and can realistically get, this is the year to draft a QB. Everything is positioned perfectly for this - we still have Brissett under contract for a year, we can get rid of Hoyer without much impact on the cap, we have some additional ammo to trade up (Washington's 2nd rounder), expectations have been lowered, etc. Also, though this view may not be widely shared because we closed out the season so weakly, but I'm not confident we'll be drafting this high next year. We are still a very young and improving team.

I agree that if that guy is there then this year is the perfect year to make the move. But I also don’t believe you settle and draft someone just because Brissett isn’t the guy. To me if you have more than 2 or 3 guys max rated as franchise caliber then you are probably lying to yourself based on need. At QB you can’t afford to talk yourselves into someone just because he’s obtainable and you have a need.

[rm1369]

He will probably be the starter Ed, unless we go FA. It just a matter of will they draft a young guy to maybe sit for a year behind him.

And I’d be very surprised if Ballard goes the FA route. I’ll be shocked if JB isn’t the opening day starter.

[Chaka]

I agree that if that guy is there then this year is the perfect year to make the move. But I also don’t believe you settle and draft someone just because Brissett isn’t the guy. To me if you have more than 2 or 3 guys max rated as franchise caliber then you are probably lying to yourself based on need. At QB you can’t afford to talk yourselves into someone just because he’s obtainable and you have a need.

Yes, and what I mean by "realistically get" is that I think the stage is set for Ballard to trade up at significant expense, and I believe he would do so even though that goes against his traditional philosophy. QB is just too important to be worried about losing a few high draft picks over, and I think historical tendencies go out the window in such circumstances.

Now, the question of course is whether Ballard likes any of these QBs enough to make such a bold move. At a minimum, given that we have the security of having Brissett around for another year, I think we'll use a high draft pick on a developmental QB. I don't think we'd be committed to such a player for 2-3 years (Basham was a 3rd rounder at a position of dire need and Ballard had no hesitation getting rid of him after a year), and a year as an understudy would tell the team a lot before making that decision.

[rcubed]

I agree that if that guy is there then this year is the perfect year to make the move. But I also don’t believe you settle and draft someone just because Brissett isn’t the guy. To me if you have more than 2 or 3 guys max rated as franchise caliber then you are probably lying to yourself based on need. At QB you can’t afford to talk yourselves into someone just because he’s obtainable and you have a need.
agree. its perfect time to draft a QB for the future. but as you accurately pointed out, if you dont believe one from this years crop isnt the long term solution then pass and try again next year. ballard isnt drafting QBs with a first round pick two years in a row. if someone is drafted this year he will be given several years before a change were to be made.

[albany ed]

And I’d be very surprised if Ballard goes the FA route. I’ll be shocked if JB isn’t the opening day starter.

Me too, but if he is, we're not making the playoffs.

[rm1369]

Now, the question of course is whether Ballard likes any of these QBs enough to make such a bold move. At a minimum, given that we have the security of having Brissett around for another year, I think we'll use a high draft pick on a developmental QB. I don't think we'd be committed to such a player for 2-3 years (Basham was a 3rd rounder at a position of dire need and Ballard had no hesitation getting rid of him after a year), and a year as an understudy would tell the team a lot before making that decision.

To me what you see as the minimum is absolutely crazy, but I fear it’s exactly what Ballard may do. I’m afraid he’s going to try to find the big win with little risk. He’s going to draft someone with all the physical tools you’d want (like Love) and count on Reich to develop him. If it works then great! But I doubt it does and I think it will just continue to string out the rebuild. I don’t think you can play the same games at QB as he has at some of the other positions. I also disagree that you can move on after a year or two as easily as he did with Basham. A developmental QB requires the full dedication and backing of the entire organization. It’s both the hardest and most important position in sports. It’s just not the same as drafting a project DE or DT.

[rm1369]

Me too, but if he is, we're not making the playoffs.

I don’t disagree, but I’m also not sure that’s a bad thing. I think the overall roster is improving, but it’s still pretty far from being able to carry a mediocre QB to a title ala TB and Baltimore with Dilfer and Flacco. I don’t really advocate tanking, but it wouldn’t be the worst thing to have a top 8 draft pick next year if Ballard doesn’t get his guy this year. Without a QB the rest of the build means very, very little. He needs to get this right. If one more season missing the playoffs are the cost of getting it right then I’m fine with that because the cost of getting it wrong is much steeper.

[rcubed]

To me what you see as the minimum is absolutely crazy, but I fear it’s exactly what Ballard may do. I’m afraid he’s going to try to find the big win with little risk. He’s going to draft someone with all the physical tools you’d want (like Love) and count on Reich to develop him. If it works then great! But I doubt it does and I think it will just continue to string out the rebuild. I don’t think you can play the same games at QB as he has at some of the other positions. I also disagree that you can move on after a year or two as easily as he did with Basham. A developmental QB requires the full dedication and backing of the entire organization. It’s both the hardest and most important position in sports. It’s just not the same as drafting a project DE or DT.
yeah, but what are the options?

1. Move up big to get one of the top QBs (one of which has major injury concerns)
2. Draft a QB within a couple draft slots of 13, which will more than likely be in the 'developmental' category.
3. Free agent, of which there are not great choices and certainly none that seem like a long term solution.
4. Go full tank and see what you get next draft.
5. just roll with current QBs and see what happens next year


1 is probably not happening, we would have to give up too many picks and we need lots of help in other areas.
3 doesnt seem like a good choice. maybe bridgewater for two years? might as well keep brissett.
4 probably doesnt happen as the rest of the team is good enough not to get us a top pick

so that leaves...
2. draft a QB, brissett starts next year. you have a year to develop and determine what you got. new QB either makes it or doesnt and you start again in a couple years.

or

5. status quo.

[rm1369]

yeah, but what are the options?

1. Move up big to get one of the top QBs (one of which has major injury concerns)
2. Draft a QB within a couple draft slots of 13, which will more than likely be in the 'developmental' category.
3. Free agent, of which there are not great choices and certainly none that seem like a long term solution.
4. Go full tank and see what you get next draft.
5. just roll with current QBs and see what happens next year


1 is probably not happening, we would have to give up too many picks and we need lots of help in other areas.
3 doesnt seem like a good choice. maybe bridgewater for two years? might as well keep brissett.
4 probably doesnt happen as the rest of the team is good enough not to get us a top pick

so that leaves...
2. draft a QB, brissett starts next year. you have a year to develop and determine what you got. new QB either makes it or doesnt and you start again in a couple years.

or

5. status quo.

If the goal is Super Bowls and not just being a decent / to good team then the only viable options to me are 1, 4/5. Either you take the first option and you go get Tua (or Herbert) if you believe in him or you push the decision to next year. That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to tank, but I don’t think you try to half ass it. If I couldn’t get it solved this year with someone I truly believe in then I’d look to move at least 1 possibly 2 of this years top 3 picks into next year so that I have ammunition when the time comes. Both of those 2nd round picks are worth a 1st next year. And #34 in particular is typically highly sought after. I’d rather do that than waste a top 45 pick on someone at QB I don’t fully believe in.

I suppose it’s always possible that they truly value someone like Love, Eason, or Fromm over a Tua or Herbert. If that’s the case and they think they can stay at 13 or 34 and get them then great. But they need to be right and really believe he’s better than the other consensus top guys. If he’s the 4th guy on their board and they still think he can be a franchise guy then I’d say their evaluation process is suspect and likely being influenced by need.

[Chaka]

yeah, but what are the options?

1. Move up big to get one of the top QBs (one of which has major injury concerns)
2. Draft a QB within a couple draft slots of 13, which will more than likely be in the 'developmental' category.
3. Free agent, of which there are not great choices and certainly none that seem like a long term solution.
4. Go full tank and see what you get next draft.
5. just roll with current QBs and see what happens next year


1 is probably not happening, we would have to give up too many picks and we need lots of help in other areas.
3 doesnt seem like a good choice. maybe bridgewater for two years? might as well keep brissett.
4 probably doesnt happen as the rest of the team is good enough not to get us a top pick

so that leaves...
2. draft a QB, brissett starts next year. you have a year to develop and determine what you got. new QB either makes it or doesnt and you start again in a couple years.

or

5. status quo.

I just don’t think 5 is a likely option, and here’s why – what would make the Colts think that next year is going to be any better for us than this year? Why would that be any less risky than this year, when everything is already positioned properly? I don’t think we are going to be materially worse next year with Brissett, and when our players return from injury and the young guys have another year under their belt. And maybe we’ll be better, possibly even a playoff team as crazy as that might seem. So would we need to extend Brissett again to make sure the QB drafted next year doesn’t have to start right away?

Just reading the tea leaves like everyone else, but this year seems to be the year to draft a QB. And I’ll go further and say that may not be by accident.

[rm1369]

I just don’t think 5 is a likely option, and here’s why – what would make the Colts think that next year is going to be any better for us than this year? Why would that be any less risky than this year, when everything is already positioned properly? I don’t think we are going to be materially worse next year with Brissett, and when our players return from injury and the young guys have another year under their belt. And maybe we’ll be better, possibly even a playoff team as crazy as that might seem. So would we need to extend Brissett again to make sure the QB drafted next year doesn’t have to start right away?

Just reading the tea leaves like everyone else, but this year seems to be the year to draft a QB. And I’ll go further and say that may not be by accident.

Because it’s about the player, not the timing. That’s it. If they don’t believe anyone is worth going and getting then they don’t believe in them enough as franchise guys. A franchise QB is worth the cost to move to 4. If they can’t get it done because nobody wants to trade or someone else beats them to it then you don’t take what you can get - not at QB. You realize you are screwed and adjust. To me that means pushing draft capital to next year. You seem to be all about pushing salary to the future for future needs, why would draft picks be any different?

But it just comes down to the fact a QB is the single most important person in a franchise to its success. Yes, more important than the GM or the coach. You don’t settle on a guy because it’s a convenient year to pick them. You need to be absolutely in love with the guy - as a player, leader, and face of the franchise. If that has to wait, then you wait.

As far as what you do with Brissett it depends but you probably let him walk and sign a short term vet as the initial starter. I’m a big time believer in having a vet young guys can lean on and learn from. Especially a young QB. If you invest in a QB you need that vet to be someone that knows his primary role is as a mentor (and temp starter) not someone who is still trying to prove themselves. So that won’t be JB. And that’s another reason why I don’t like the idea of drafting someone and then doing it again if they don’t work. QB is the single position where I don’t believe competition is good. If everyone in the locker room doesn’t know and understand who the guy is, you don’t have one.

[Puck]

So lets say we stay with JB/Kelly one more yr.

A kid to watch for next yr is Jamie Newman. Doubt we'll be bad enough for Lawrence . But Newman could be someone to be considered.

[Chaka]

Because it’s about the player, not the timing. That’s it. If they don’t believe anyone is worth going and getting then they don’t believe in them enough as franchise guys. A franchise QB is worth the cost to move to 4. If they can’t get it done because nobody wants to trade or someone else beats them to it then you don’t take what you can get - not at QB. You realize you are screwed and adjust. To me that means pushing draft capital to next year. You seem to be all about pushing salary to the future for future needs, why would draft picks be any different?

But it just comes down to the fact a QB is the single most important person in a franchise to its success. Yes, more important than the GM or the coach. You don’t settle on a guy because it’s a convenient year to pick them. You need to be absolutely in love with the guy - as a player, leader, and face of the franchise. If that has to wait, then you wait.

As far as what you do with Brissett it depends but you probably let him walk and sign a short term vet as the initial starter. I’m a big time believer in having a vet young guys can lean on and learn from. Especially a young QB. If you invest in a QB you need that vet to be someone that knows his primary role is as a mentor (and temp starter) not someone who is still trying to prove themselves. So that won’t be JB. And that’s another reason why I don’t like the idea of drafting someone and then doing it again if they don’t work. QB is the single position where I don’t believe competition is good. If everyone in the locker room doesn’t know and understand who the guy is, you don’t have one.

The problem with this thinking is that it essentially means the Colts shouldn’t take a QB unless it’s at the very top of the draft – anyone further down (say, mid-1st round or lower) is going to have question marks. But if the Colts can't trade up and aren’t bad enough next year to have a pick at the top of the draft, we’ll be in the exact same position (or maybe worse) but will have lost a year. Outside of the top of the 1st round, I think roughly the same QB opportunities will exist this year or next, so why wait?

So I think you take a QB this year, one that has some of the franchise qualities you’re looking for, and use 2020 to develop that player. Maybe it’s not even in the top three rounds – maybe someone even lower - but someone whose potential you believe will become clear in a year.

[rm1369]

The problem with this thinking is that it essentially means the Colts shouldn’t take a QB unless it’s at the very top of the draft – anyone further down (say, mid-1st round or lower) is going to have question marks. But if the Colts can't trade up and aren’t bad enough next year to have a pick at the top of the draft, we’ll be in the exact same position (or maybe worse) but will have lost a year. Outside of the top of the 1st round, I think roughly the same QB opportunities will exist this year or next, so why wait?

So I think you take a QB this year, one that has some of the franchise qualities you’re looking for, and use 2020 to develop that player. Maybe it’s not even in the top three rounds – maybe someone even lower - but someone whose potential you believe will become clear in a year.

There is no more important position on an NFL team than QB. Advocating taking someone that’s cheap and just seeing what happens is absolutely ridiculous to me. It’s hard for me to really get my head around how risk adverse you are. Ballard is not going to build a championship team by simply avoiding making a mistake. He is going to have to actively fix holes on this roster. Ultimately, I’m not saying they have to trade up this year or next. I’m simply saying they have to identify someone they believe in, get them, and then put the entire resources of the organization behind them. That is not a 1 year process for a rookie 3rd round QB. I’d much rather them actively try to fix the issue at QB and miss than waiting to see what falls in their lap.

If starting the 2021 or 2022 season the team still has no long term answer at QB and they have not at least heavily invested in finding one are you going to be OK with that and preach patience? Maybe tell us how much better the backup guards are now than when Ballard started? If Ballard plays the same games at QB he has a WR he will fail. He may improve the overall roster but the team isn’t going to win anything that matters. I hope like hell Ballard isn’t as risk adverse as you are.

[Chaka]

There is no more important position on an NFL team than QB. Advocating taking someone that’s cheap and just seeing what happens is absolutely ridiculous to me. It’s hard for me to really get my head around how risk adverse you are. Ballard is not going to build a championship team by simply avoiding making a mistake. He is going to have to actively fix holes on this roster. Ultimately, I’m not saying they have to trade up this year or next. I’m simply saying they have to identify someone they believe in, get them, and then put the entire resources of the organization behind them. That is not a 1 year process for a rookie 3rd round QB. I’d much rather them actively try to fix the issue at QB and miss than waiting to see what falls in their lap.

If starting the 2021 or 2022 season the team still has no long term answer at QB and they have not at least heavily invested in finding one are you going to be OK with that and preach patience? Maybe tell us how much better the backup guards are now than when Ballard started? If Ballard plays the same games at QB he has a WR he will fail. He may improve the overall roster but the team isn’t going to win anything that matters. I hope like hell Ballard isn’t as risk adverse as you are.

What exactly are you talking about? I wasn’t advocating taking someone “cheap”. All I was saying – consistent with everything I’ve been saying in this thread – is that the stars are aligned to take a QB this year. If that means trading up – great, I honestly think Ballard would do that if he can find a willing partner, despite the common belief that he’s too in love with this own draft picks to do it. If no suitable trade partners can be found, then I think we should still draft a QB since I don’t think we’ll be in any better position next year (and maybe worse) and just a year older. Not just "anyone", but someone the team thinks can be developed. We will never find a perfect QB prospect in the mid-first round or later, so we just need to accept that and find someone we think we can develop now.

You seem to be willing to throw away the opportunity to develop someone for an entire year – and to keep the organization idling - on the HOPE that we could trade up next year for a top QB prospect without knowing who that may be or where we will be drafting. I think that’s crazy – but call it “risk averse” if you want. Furthermore, we would need to extend Brissett for another year or sign a vet QB (and who might that be? I guess Kurt Cousins has shown a history of being interested in 1-year contracts, but who else?).

Despite what you say, there’s nothing wrong with drafting a QB and evaluating them for a year and, if necessary, getting rid of them if they aren’t going to pan out. Among the higher round draftees, Josh Rosen and Deshone Kizer are a couple of recent examples that come to mind.

[Chromeburn]

Nice thing about QB's, they retain their value better than other positions. I bet if the Dolphins wanted to trade Rosen they would still get a decent pick for him and the Cardinals got a 2nd for him from the Dolphins.

College NC on tonight. The next two number one picks playing each other. Doesn't happen often. Tigers are going to kill them.

[apballin]

Nice thing about QB's, they retain their value better than other positions. I bet if the Dolphins wanted to trade Rosen they would still get a decent pick for him and the Cardinals got a 2nd for him from the Dolphins.

College NC on tonight. The next two number one picks playing each other. Doesn't happen often. Tigers are going to kill them.

Which tigers lol

[rm1369]

Despite what you say, there’s nothing wrong with drafting a QB and evaluating them for a year and, if necessary, getting rid of them if they aren’t going to pan out. Among the higher round draftees, Josh Rosen and Deshone Kizer are a couple of recent examples that come to mind.

The teams that moved on from Rosen and Kizer coincidentally had the number one pick in the following draft. I’m not sure how the situations are comparable when you keep saying the Colts are likely to be better next year. The issue with your suggestion isn’t taking a project QB (although it’s not my preference) it’s in the idea they could / should just move on after a year. Are there circumstances that could lead to that (like getting the number one pick)? Sure. But if they are making the pick with the idea of doing anything less than putting their full support behind the guy and giving him a few years to develop then it’s a wasted pick. If the guy is so damn bad that without really seeing the field the team decides to move on after one year, what more can you say except it’s a bad pick? You want to waste a 5th - 7th? Fine. But wtf is the point if you are going to ditch the guy after a year? It just makes no sense. It’s a move to simply say you did something.

[Spike]

Nice thing about QB's, they retain their value better than other positions. I bet if the Dolphins wanted to trade Rosen they would still get a decent pick for him and the Cardinals got a 2nd for him from the Dolphins.

College NC on tonight. The next two number one picks playing each other. Doesn't happen often. Tigers are going to kill them.

Burrow looking damn good again tonight. Too bad we won't be able to draft him.

[Chromeburn]

Which tigers lol

;)

Burrow looking damn good again tonight. Too bad we won't be able to draft him.

Everything I hear about him is good personality wise. Seems to study QB's too. I like him a lot. Bengals are idiots if they don't draft him.

I like the RB's in this game. Etienne is a mismatch nitemare and has really good hands. Edwards-Helaire is really under used. Did you see that sliding jumpcut, it was so fast and smooth, just amazing. Hope we draft one of them.

[Chaka]

The teams that moved on from Rosen and Kizer coincidentally had the number one pick in the following draft. I’m not sure how the situations are comparable when you keep saying the Colts are likely to be better next year. The issue with your suggestion isn’t taking a project QB (although it’s not my preference) it’s in the idea they could / should just move on after a year. Are there circumstances that could lead to that (like getting the number one pick)? Sure. But if they are making the pick with the idea of doing anything less than putting their full support behind the guy and giving him a few years to develop then it’s a wasted pick. If the guy is so damn bad that without really seeing the field the team decides to move on after one year, what more can you say except it’s a bad pick? You want to waste a 5th - 7th? Fine. But wtf is the point if you are going to ditch the guy after a year? It just makes no sense. It’s a move to simply say you did something.

Well, then I'll ask you a practical question to put your statements to the test. What franchise QBs have take more than a year to show promise after being picked high in the draft? Kurt Warner doesn't count, he was undrafted and cut in training camp. Brett Favre? Not really true, he was a 2nd rounder that was able to be traded for a 1st rounder the next year.

I haven't done a comprehensive survey, and maybe you can think of a few, but I think its fair to say that the franchise QBs usually flash early. I can think of several - Rodgers, Mahomes, Jackson for instance. Even Tom Brady, a 6th round afterthought, was installed as the starting QB two games into his second season.

In short, I think we'd know in a year if we have something special. And, by the way, I never said one year was all we'd give a developmental QB, just that I think in a year we'd have a much better idea of what we have. And if it looks like it's going nowhere, then by all means cut bait.

[rm1369]

Well, then I'll ask you a practical question to put your statements to the test. What franchise QBs have take more than a year to show promise after being picked high in the draft? Kurt Warner doesn't count, he was undrafted and cut in training camp. Brett Favre? Not really true, he was a 2nd rounder that was able to be traded for a 1st rounder the next year.

I haven't done a comprehensive survey, and maybe you can think of a few, but I think its fair to say that the franchise QBs usually flash early. I can think of several - Rodgers, Mahomes, Jackson for instance. Even Tom Brady, a 6th round afterthought, was installed as the starting QB two games into his second season.

In short, I think we'd know in a year if we have something special. And, by the way, I never said one year was all we'd give a developmental QB, just that I think in a year we'd have a much better idea of what we have. And if it looks like it's going nowhere, then by all means cut bait.

Chaka I’ll admit it would be pretty damn hard to answer your question, but that’s fine because it isn’t testing my statements anyway. My issue isn’t that you can’t give up on a guy after a year because he may blow up elsewhere, it’s that teams rarely give up on a QB (other than very late picks) after one year. If you want me to compile a list of guys that showed enough that teams kept them around a few years, but that never developed into franchise guys, I can. Going to be awhile though because it will be a long ass list. And that’s my point.

It’s very often not obvious what you have until they see the field for real games and you see if they progress. That’s why Brady didn’t see the field until Bledsoe was hurt. The greatest coach in history didn’t recognize Brady as a HOFer at practice. Jackson didn’t start until Flaco was hurt. Warner didn’t become the starter until Green was hurt. Yes it’s possible he’s so bad you move on after a year (bad pick) and it’s possible he’s so good you bench JB this year for him. But BY FAR the most realistic scenario is that you still see promise in the guy and he becomes your starter next year. Unless he is absolutely awful you don’t draft another high QB next year, you use the picks to shore up the rest of the team to try to lessen the load on a young QB. So that makes it at least a 2 year investment. And if the guy shows flashes of good play mixed with some bad play (like many do) then it’s possible he gets another year to see if he improves.

I don’t want the team drafting a guy because the timing is right. I want them drafting a guy because they absolutely believe in him. If they decide to move on from him after a year then they spectacularly fucked up their evaluation of him. I don’t see how that is in anyway arguable. And I certainly don’t see that as a plan. I’d much rather they target and go get a guy they believe in than giving up 2-3 years on their 4th or 5th choice because he happened to be available.

[Racehorse]

Chaka I’ll admit it would be pretty damn hard to answer your question, but that’s fine because it isn’t testing my statements anyway. My issue isn’t that you can’t give up on a guy after a year because he may blow up elsewhere, it’s that teams rarely give up on a QB (other than very late picks) after one year. If you want me to compile a list of guys that showed enough that teams kept them around a few years, but that never developed into franchise guys, I can. Going to be awhile though because it will be a long ass list. And that’s my point.

It’s very often not obvious what you have until they see the field for real games and you see if they progress. That’s why Brady didn’t see the field until Bledsoe was hurt. The greatest coach in history didn’t recognize Brady as a HOFer at practice. Jackson didn’t start until Flaco was hurt. Warner didn’t become the starter until Green was hurt. Yes it’s possible he’s so bad you move on after a year (bad pick) and it’s possible he’s so good you bench JB this year for him. But BY FAR the most realistic scenario is that you still see promise in the guy and he becomes your starter next year. Unless he is absolutely awful you don’t draft another high QB next year, you use the picks to shore up the rest of the team to try to lessen the load on a young QB. So that makes it at least a 2 year investment. And if the guy shows flashes of good play mixed with some bad play (like many do) then it’s possible he gets another year to see if he improves.

I don’t want the team drafting a guy because the timing is right. I want them drafting a guy because they absolutely believe in him. If they decide to move on from him after a year then they spectacularly fucked up their evaluation of him. I don’t see how that is in anyway arguable. And I certainly don’t see that as a plan. I’d much rather they target and go get a guy they believe in than giving up 2-3 years on their 4th or 5th choice because he happened to be available.
That all makes sense. However, how much capital do you think is too much? That seems to be the sticking point.

[rm1369]

That all makes sense. However, how much capital do you think is too much? That seems to be the sticking point.

Damn good question that’s hard to answer. It depends how much you believe in a certain guy and what your scouts think of the potential for next years group. I’d certainly be willing to do a trade similar to the Colts / Jets trade to move to #4 and get a guy I believe is a franchise QB. If I have to swap next years #2 with next years #1 to get my guy, then yeah I still do it. I’d probably still be willing to add some lower pics of swaps if I had to to get it done. So two #1s and two #2s, plus some mid to lower round pics or position swaps to go from 13 to 4 - if I believe the guy is a franchise QB.

If that’s not enough or I don’t see a guy after Burrow that I believe in enough then I’d turn my sights to next years draft. I’d look to move two of this years top 3 pics to next years draft to build up the ammo I need to get my guy. It wouldn’t be unrealistic to end up with 3 #1s next year as early to mid 2nds are fairly commonly traded for future #1s. So next year three #1s and a #2 should move you up pretty damn high. Sprinkle in some swaps or lower pics if absolutely necessary.

And what if you don’t see a guy next year? Well being the GM of a QBless team is a shitty deal. I don’t have much else to say. At some point you have to identify a guy and be willing to pull the trigger.

The real cost to me is time, not picks. I don’t see the need to waste time (and draft pics) on someone the team doesn’t completely believe in. That’s why I don’t agree with the idea that they draft someone just to have them in the pipeline. It not only wastes a valuable pick, but you can only really develop one QB at a time, it’s not like other positions. The team would only do what Chaka is suggesting and move on after a year if they completely, completely fucked up the pick. So while my scenario looks scary because there is a chance that in two years time you still haven’t been able to acquire that guy, I believe that chance is much smaller than the likelihood that if you draft a guy you aren’t sold on (because this is the year it makes sense), you will still be evaluating him 2 years or 3 years down the road. Then when he doesn’t pan out you start the process again without the drafts pics having been pushed into the future to go get your guy. You are in the typical QB purgatory - too good to draft high, but not good enough to get a Super Bowl.

[Pez]

Some really good posts in this thread from rm, chaka, race etc.

I think the Constanzo situation plays big into this. If he retires it hoses us pretty seriously. Even if he doesnt retire, we have to get an FA OT, and we have to draft an OT. We really want Braden Smith to be playing guard opposite Q.

The only first rounder that makes sense to me is OT Andrew Thomas. (He may be gone by 13) This allows us to keep investing in the OL, and provided we got a free agent tackle, we can move Smith to guard. If we still have Costanzo, it's an embarrassment of riches and perhaps trade capital.

I think we get a QB in the second, If QB Eason is still available at #34 we go for it. If not, we get CB or DT or WR.

We can get Fromm with #44.

[Puck]

Trade 1st and second rd picks this yr for next yrs draft picks... roll with JB and offer it all for the 1st pick to get Lawrence

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

The teams that moved on from Rosen and Kizer coincidentally had the number one pick in the following draft.


Hmmm.....so maybe the Colts should trade for Rosen and start him next year......with the hope of landing the #1 pick in the 2021 draft?!?!? :cool:

[smitty46953]

Trade anything Bengals want for Burrow?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Spike]

Trade anything Bengals want for Burrow?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I would love to have Burrow, but I seriously doubt the sorry ass Bengals would give up the rights to him, no matter what they are offered. I feel kinda sorry for Burrow because the Bengals are so damn dysfunctional. I think Burrow with Reich would be incredible for him and the Colts.

[YDFL Commish]

Burrow was dropping dimes last night. He looked like a bigger more athletic Brees out there.

He doesn't have a rocket launcher for an arm, but with anticipation and accuracy he doesn't have to.

If his success was NOT mostly tied to Joe Brady, then he is an elite QB prospect. In other words, what would he look like in a shitty system?

[Luck4Reich]

I would love to have Burrow, but I seriously doubt the sorry ass Bengals would give up the rights to him, no matter what they are offered. I feel kinda sorry for Burrow because the Bengals are so damn dysfunctional. I think Burrow with Reich would be incredible for him and the Colts.

His talent will be wasted in Bungle land.

[Dam8610]

His talent will be wasted in Bungle land.

Or he'll be their new Carson Palmer, hopefully without the injury issues.

[Puck]

Curious.

Would you trade this yrs 1st rounder Rock and Banagu for next yrs 1st rounder with a team To be able to move up to get Trevor Lawerence ?

[Butter]

Curious.

Would you trade this yrs 1st rounder Rock and Banagu for next yrs 1st rounder with a team To be able to move up to get Trevor Lawerence ?

If I thought he was true Franchise QB absolutely.

[Colt Classic]

Those guys are much easier to replace than finding another Lawrence--and I'm not all that excited about Lawrence.

[YDFL Commish]

Those guys are much easier to replace than finding another Lawrence--and I'm not all that excited about Lawrence.

Neither am I. Lawrence will not be a true franchise QB.

[Puck]

Until Monday he was an undefeated Sophomore. There may be someone to challenge him as the #1 pick next yr. but with the info we know right now he’s the best there is

Although I think the kid transferring to GA from Wake Forest will give him a run for his money


And he has great hair

[Puck]

The point of this is simple. Are we a QB away? If so pull a Ditka. If not build the D and roll with JB.

I vote the latter. I think JB will get better. And if we have a pass rush from the 3 tech and a CB along with another WR We’re gonna be competitive.

Otherwise. DONT be competitive and get the QB next yr. Lawrence is gonna be special. Make no bones about it. Maybe not cigar smoking special after the NC game. But the kid is good

How much you willing to give up for that pick knowing we’re gonna su k for another yr


Ballard can fill the roster with talent from FA

How important are the draft picks to YOU?

Win now or build for the future?

[YDFL Commish]

The point of this is simple. Are we a QB away? If so pull a Ditka. If not build the D and roll with JB.

I vote the latter. I think JB will get better. And if we have a pass rush from the 3 tech and a CB along with another WR We’re gonna be competitive.

Otherwise. DONT be competitive and get the QB next yr. Lawrence is gonna be special. Make no bones about it. Maybe not cigar smoking special after the NC game. But the kid is good

How much you willing to give up for that pick knowing we’re gonna su k for another yr


Ballard can fill the roster with talent from FA

How important are the draft picks to YOU?

Win now or build for the future?

I don't disagree with rolling with JB, but at least add some legitimate competition...who you don't have to sell the draft for.

[Colt Classic]

Until Monday he was an undefeated Sophomore. There may be someone to challenge him as the #1 pick next yr. but with the info we know right now he’s the best there is

Although I think the kid transferring to GA from Wake Forest will give him a run for his money


And he has great hair

I don't like a "leader" who has never lost, never had much adversity. Especially when his first season in the NFL he'll probably have to deal with losing more than once. After never losing, now the entire world is bugging him, asking how it feels and just being anything other than the cheerleaders who have surrounded him since little league.

[Spike]

I would take Lawrence in a heartbeat, whatever it takes. Not looking forward to years without a franchise QB. Lawrence is a generational talent, he just needs to cut his fucking hair.

[Maniac]

Curious.

Would you trade this yrs 1st rounder Rock and Banagu for next yrs 1st rounder with a team To be able to move up to get Trevor Lawerence ?

Yes except we have no idea who will get the #1 pick so you don't know who to trade with. Beyond that, what you listed likely wouldn't be enough

[Spike]

Neither am I. Lawrence will not be a true franchise QB.

Yes, he will. He's got a shitload of talent. I wouldn't let the LSU game fool you into thinking he is not a franchise QB.

[Racehorse]

I would take Lawrence in a heartbeat, whatever it takes. Not looking forward to years without a franchise QB. Lawrence is a generational talent, he just needs to cut his fucking hair.

Just to be clear, I gave thanks because of the comment about the stupid hair. I think he will be good, but I wouldn’t trade just anything to get him.

[Puck]

Yes except we have no idea who will get the #1 pick so you don't know who to trade with. Beyond that, what you listed likely wouldn't be enough

Lots of good discussion on this.

My point about Rock and Banagu was that those were are 1st 2 picks last yr. So if we trade our 1st this yr for a pick next yr it would give us 2 first round picks. I dont remember the specific of us trading out of the 1st last yr but our 1st rounder last yr was basically less than Rock and Banagu.

If that makes sense.

I am guessing that with JB as the starter we would be about where we are right now . 7-9 or 8-8 ish

The top drafting teams this yr will most likely make a move for a QB this yr. Leaving us in a position to use our draft capital to move up.

Never a guarantee but you never know.

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

I dont remember the specific of us trading out of the 1st last yr


The Colts traded 2019 pick 1.26 to Washington for 2019 pick 2.46 and WSH's 2020 2nd round pick which turned into 2020 pick 2.34.


When working with the draft value charts, most teams discount draft picks in the future either by a percentage or by a round since no one knows what the order of the draft picks will be the following year.

[JAFF]

I don't suppose anyone is still concerned about Castonzo retiring? I want him to stay. But if he does retire, doesn't a left tackle move to the top of the list?

[Racehorse]

I don't suppose anyone is still concerned about Castonzo retiring? I want him to stay. But if he does retire, doesn't a left tackle move to the top of the list?

If there is a better LT available than QB, then yes. That said, drafting for need can lead to reaching, which is not good.

[Puck]

I don't suppose anyone is still concerned about Castonzo retiring? I want him to stay. But if he does retire, doesn't a left tackle move to the top of the list?

I suggested we address this issue in the last draft and you gave me a bunch of shit about it.

[CanuckColt]

Agree it will be interesting. My initial thoughts are they will see who is available to draft at 13, no trading up. If someone they like is there then they draft him. If not they roll with brissett and wait a year to draft. Brissett starts next seasons regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If Brissett starts next season, I am not following the Colts next year...and I have followed them since 1958...and there may be others.

[Pez]

I don't suppose anyone is still concerned about Castonzo retiring? I want him to stay. But if he does retire, doesn't a left tackle move to the top of the list?I said this 20 posts ago.... draft a tackle and get a fa tackle. The price is too high for a first round qb. Even if we could trade the farm for burrow (which we cant) we would watch him get sacked 55 times as a rookie. All of us know the chorus to that song.

We need a qb a bit better than brissett, fromm is the guy in the 3rd.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[rm1369]

We need a qb a bit better than brissett, fromm is the guy in the 3rd.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Do you think Fromm can be a true franchise guy or just better than JB?

[JAFF]

I suggested we address this issue in the last draft and you gave me a bunch of shit about it.

Well, I guess second guessing after a year and the announcement of a possible retirement has made you Kreskin.

But here we are. I just thought Castonzo's decision should be part of the equation since HE suggested he might be coming back. That wasn't the issue last year.

[Brylok]

If Brissett starts next season, I am not following the Colts next year...and I have followed them since 1958...and there may be others.

Sure. You're probably asleep by halftime anyways, gramps.

[Puck]

Well, I guess second guessing after a year and the announcement of a possible retirement has made you Kreskin.

But here we are. I just thought Castonzo's decision should be part of the equation since HE suggested he might be coming back. That wasn't the issue last year.

Wasnt that hard to see last yr. and with Luck covering up all the holes we now see It made sense last yr to build for the future by using a top pick on that position

This yr it makes less sense we need a QB

[albany ed]

If Brissett starts next season, I am not following the Colts next year...and I have followed them since 1958...and there may be others.

What do you mean not following? Not attending the games? Not caring if they win or lose? Not watching the games on TV? Just what kind of fan are you?

[Luck4Reich]

Do you think Fromm can be a true franchise guy or just better than JB?

Do you magically know who will be a franchise guy? There is no automatic pick that is 100% guarantee. Every year there are QBs picked in the Top 10 that dont become Franchise guys...... on the flipside there are a lot of QBs not even picked in the first round..... that no fucking body thought they were franchise guys who went on to win Superbowls.

Ballard will have to hit on somebody obviously and I'm sure he knows Brissett isnt gonna get the job done.

[Pez]

Do you think Fromm can be a true franchise guy or just better than JB?Maybe, a franchise guy, but probably not. Same can be said for anyone else in the draft except the guys that are way too expensive.

I think we should stay conservative, keep building the team and let fromm and brissett compete for the starting job.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Luck4Reich]

Half of the Superbowls have been won by a QB Not drafted in the first round. So drafting a guy in the first round guarantees nothing.

[Oldcolt]

Half of the Superbowls have been won by a QB Not drafted in the first round. So drafting a guy in the first round guarantees nothing.

It guarantees nothing. But since there are 7 rounds and fully half of the Super Bowl quarterbacks come from the first round your odds are a hell of a lot better with a first round quarterback. And one guy from NE screws up the odds big time.

[Luck4Reich]

It guarantees nothing. But since there are 7 rounds and fully half of the Super Bowl quarterbacks come from the first round your odds are a hell of a lot better with a first round quarterback. And one guy from NE screws up the odds big time.

But then you have 1st round QBs Terry Bradshaw, Trent Dilfer and Jim Macmahon that won Superbowls only because they all played on the teams with the greatest defenses in the history of the NFL. That's 6 SBs that wash the 6 of Brady.

So we are back to square one... look I get it a QB in round one can help chances but not guarantee.

Bart Starr, Johnny Unitas, Kurt Warner, Brett Favre, Russell Wilson, Joe Montana.... yep none of these SB winners picked in the first round.

Again.. hoping that Ballard can find us the right guy regardless of what round.... maybe he is bagging groceries somewhere. :cool:

[Luck4Reich]

I'm playing Devil's advocate more than anything. If we all agreed on everything it wouldn't be any fun.

Love to see Joe Burrow on this team.

[Chromeburn]

Do you think Fromm can be a true franchise guy or just better than JB?

Fromm doesn’t throw downfield either. I don’t know if he will be much better. Until QB is fixed, everything else has to take a backseat. Otherwise we are the Bungles or Browns. Have some decent talent. It will eventually leave bc guys want to play for teams that win.

[Puck]

But then you have 1st round QBs Terry Bradshaw, Trent Dilfer and Jim Macmahon that won Superbowls only because they all played on the teams with the greatest defenses in the history of the NFL. That's 6 SBs that wash the 6 of Brady.

So we are back to square one... look I get it a QB in round one can help chances but not guarantee.

Bart Starr, Johnny Unitas, Kurt Warner, Brett Favre, Russell Wilson, Joe Montana.... yep none of these SB winners picked in the first round.

Again.. hoping that Ballard can find us the right guy regardless of what round.... maybe he is bagging groceries somewhere. :cool:


Going to assume you are too young to have seen Bradshaw play. Ot sure why you would lump him into that argument. He was a good QB. Swann and Stallworth didn’t throw the ball to themselves. Yes their D was good but he was also SB MVP at least once. Won 4 Super Bowls in 6 yrs He gets a bad wrap

[Chromeburn]

Half of the Superbowls have been won by a QB Not drafted in the first round. So drafting a guy in the first round guarantees nothing.

This is kind of misleading, especially with Brady skewing the numbers. But winning the SB is more than a QB, yet it is hard to win a SB without a decent QB. The odds of finding a franchise QB are best in the top 15 picks. Then in the first round. After that the odds start dropping dramatically. Everyone wants to remember Dak Prescott, no one wants to remember Cardale Jones. For everyone one of those hits there are 12 misses. Every round has misses, just the top half of the first has the least.

But other things should be considered. Do they have a good team around them? Did they get thrown to the fire or did they sit and learn first? Was it a good QB draft? A lot of factors figure into a QB’s success, not just his skill level and draft position. Teams may get a good QB but never win a SB, because you have to then put a team around that QB. Not every front office is good at that. Yet a good QB can cover up a lot of holes in a team and take you into the playoffs. You can win with decent QB play, but you have to be very strong in several other areas. We don’t even have average QB play, I think Brisset finished 26th, he is easy to scheme against and isn’t good enough to carry the passing game.

Just go back to ‘98 and see how many misses there are after the first.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

[Luck4Reich]

All I was saying was very good to great QBs can be found outside the first round and hoping Ballard gets one.

[Maniac]

Yeah I don't care what round we find a franchise QB in, just keep drafting QB's until we hit on one. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

I'll still watch the Colts though. I watched when Curtis Painter was the QB, so if I can get through that, I can watch JB until a better option emerges.

[Chromeburn]

All I was saying was very good to great QBs can be found outside the first round and hoping Ballard gets one.

You certainly can, just your odds go down with each round just like all the other positions.

[YDFL Commish]

Going to assume you are too young to have seen Bradshaw play. Ot sure why you would lump him into that argument. He was a good QB. Swann and Stallworth didn’t throw the ball to themselves. Yes their D was good but he was also SB MVP at least once. Won 4 Super Bowls in 6 yrs He gets a bad wrap

You are so wrong. I'm old enough to have seen Bradshaw play. The first 5 years of is career, they were doing anything they could do to replace him...Terry Hanratty, Joe Gilliam, etc.

Did he develop? Yes he did, but it took so god damn long, that he surely was a bust.

So why does Bradshaw belong in the HOF over say Jim Plunkett, He doesn't ...and neither one do. Nor does Joe Namath.

[Spike]

You are so wrong. I'm old enough to have seen Bradshaw play. The first 5 years of is career, they were doing anything they could do to replace him...Terry Hanratty, Joe Gilliam, etc.

Did he develop? Yes he did, but it took so god damn long, that he surely was a bust.

So why does Bradshaw belong in the HOF over say Jim Plunkett, He doesn't ...and neither one do. Nor does Joe Namath.

Namath is probably the most overrated QB of all time.

[Chromeburn]

Namath is probably the most overrated QB of all time.

Talk about milking a moment. I still remember Namath drunk on the Jets sideline hitting on the sideline reporter.

[Puck]

You are so wrong. I'm old enough to have seen Bradshaw play. The first 5 years of is career, they were doing anything they could do to replace him...Terry Hanratty, Joe Gilliam, etc.

Did he develop? Yes he did, but it took so god damn long, that he surely was a bust.

So why does Bradshaw belong in the HOF over say Jim Plunkett, He doesn't ...and neither one do. Nor does Joe Namath.

Calm down old fucker....You are correct about the early years . But he developed into a very good QB . he was a 3 time pro bowler and made the all pro team once along with 4 SB's

Was he great? No but he is a lot better than the others Dilfer and McMahon he was grouped in with.

[Hoopsdoc]

Don’t know if it’s been mentioned here but Foles to the Colts makes some sense because of Reich.

I hope it doesn’t happen, but it’s possible. If we’re signing a veteran, make it Bridgewater.

[albany ed]

I heard this yesterday. The Packers have had 30 straight years of first ballot HOF quarterback play, and they have 2 SB to show for it. Same as the Ravens who have nothing close to HOF quarterback play.

[Oldcolt]

I hear this yesterday. The Packers have had 30 straight years of first ballot HOF quarterback play, and they have 2 SB to show for it. Same as the Ravens who have nothing close to HOF quarterback play.

Sometimes I forget that it is a team sport. We had Manning/Luck for years with very little in championships to show.

There are a lot of former high draft choices available in free agency and thru trades if you believe the chatter. At least one of them, given the right circumstances, will probably be able to turn their careers around. Ballard/Reich will give these guys a long look. We should look everywhere in our search.

Bradshaw was a physical freak when he came out. Arm like a gun, big and athletic. Loved watching him throw the ball. I would love to have a guy as crappy as you guys think he was under center. Four super bowl wins in 6 years. Take that any day. We don't need a GOAT, just a guy who is good enough.

[Dam8610]

I heard this yesterday. The Packers have had 30 straight years of first ballot HOF quarterback play, and they have 2 SB to show for it. Same as the Ravens who have nothing close to HOF quarterback play.

What about the seasons in between the championship runs?

[albany ed]

What about the seasons in between the championship runs?

If your point is that a HOF QB will give you more wins in the regular season, you're right. The Packers have had only 4 or 5 terrible years and the rest were either good or at least mediocre years. I won't argue with you that having QBs like Luck or Manning made every season more enjoyable, I just don't want to see this team give up too much just to get a QB who may or may not end up being of HOF caliber. I thought Darnold was a sure thing, now, I'm not so sure.

[Oldcolt]

If our goal is a championship there is no sure thing, at least no one player can guarantee that. With a qb the caliber of Luck you could be lazy, rest on your laurels and still have a pretty good year. Without that quality leading your team front office/coaching doesn’t have as much leeway in putting an enjoyable product on the field. Ballard/Reich need to earn their money

[JAFF]

If your point is that a HOF QB will give you more wins in the regular season, you're right. The Packers have had only 4 or 5 terrible years and the rest were either good or at least mediocre years. I won't argue with you that having QBs like Luck or Manning made every season more enjoyable, I just don't want to see this team give up too much just to get a QB who may or may not end up being of HOF caliber. I thought Darnold was a sure thing, now, I'm not so sure.

Irsay got it right with Manning and blew it with Luck.

He hired Polian and Mora. Solid guys who understood how to handle a team and young talent. Griegson and Pagano was a cluster ****. Neither one had ever run a team or organization before.

I like what they have with Ballard and Reich. Granted, Ballard has never run an organization before, but he has shown his metal. Frank Reich has seen it from the worst to the best and he knows a QB when he sees one.

If the Colts are going to draft a QB in the first round its not about is athletic ability, it's going to be about what's between his ears. Is he all about football or all about how he looks?

About the Packers, between Starr and Farve, they had very few trips to the playoffs. A great QB can get you into the playoffs. The rest of the team needs to win it.

[Puck]

I heard this yesterday. The Packers have had 30 straight years of first ballot HOF quarterback play, and they have 2 SB to show for it. Same as the Ravens who have nothing close to HOF quarterback play.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA...... Are you forgetting Steve McNair ands Fatty McButterpants?

[Spike]

Irsay got it right with Manning and blew it with Luck.

He hired Polian and Mora. Solid guys who understood how to handle a team and young talent. Griegson and Pagano was a cluster ****. Neither one had ever run a team or organization before.

I like what they have with Ballard and Reich. Granted, Ballard has never run an organization before, but he has shown his metal. Frank Reich has seen it from the worst to the best and he knows a QB when he sees one.

If the Colts are going to draft a QB in the first round its not about is athletic ability, it's going to be about what's between his ears. Is he all about football or all about how he looks?

About the Packers, between Starr and Farve, they had very few trips to the playoffs. A great QB can get you into the playoffs. The rest of the team needs to win it.

I don't think Irsay blew it with Luck. Everyone loved the Luck pick and he played well. No one could have anticipated Luck retiring this early in his career. The only other option was RG111 and he was good for 1 year. Can't blame Irsay for picking Luck.

[jasperhobbs]

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA...... Are you forgetting Steve McNair ands Fatty McButterpants?

Who is fatty mcbutterpants?

[Puck]

Who is fatty mcbutterpants?

He's the OC for Tampa now

So even more reason that Winston sucks . Besides Arians killing him every play

[Colt Classic]

Who is fatty mcbutterpants?

Buyin Sandwich

[Chromeburn]

I heard this yesterday. The Packers have had 30 straight years of first ballot HOF quarterback play, and they have 2 SB to show for it. Same as the Ravens who have nothing close to HOF quarterback play.

Well they had a HOF defense and Flacco played at a HOF level that other year so QB play did matter.

I honestly don't know why some of you are leaning towards average QB play. A great QB always has you in a position to win year in and year out. It just makes things easier. A game manager is only as good as the team around him and that never last and is frankly a shorter time frame.

[rcubed]

I don't think Irsay blew it with Luck. Everyone loved the Luck pick and he played well. No one could have anticipated Luck retiring this early in his career. The only other option was RG111 and he was good for 1 year. Can't blame Irsay for picking Luck.



You missed the whole point of his post. It was about the leadership paired with the great QB he was referring to. Polian/Mora/Dungy vs the clown show.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAFF]

I don't think Irsay blew it with Luck. Everyone loved the Luck pick and he played well. No one could have anticipated Luck retiring this early in his career. The only other option was RG111 and he was good for 1 year. Can't blame Irsay for picking Luck.

Not what I was saying. He got a GM who put tools around Manning and made them competitive.

Pagano and Grigson couldn't buid an O line or muscle up a D to help Luck. Oh and having an offense that had him throw out of a 7 step drop with an O line that couldn't block got Luck hurt. I know, Luck wouldn't slide. But the admin of the Colts couldn't protect him and he took a beating.

[Pez]

Well they had a HOF defense and Flacco played at a HOF level that other year so QB play did matter.



I honestly don't know why some of you are leaning towards average QB play. A great QB always has you in a position to win year in and year out. It just makes things easier. A game manager is only as good as the team around him and that never last and is frankly a shorter time frame.

I agree that a great qb will have us in a position to win. I just don't think we will without spending too much. Burrow and tuna are likely off the table for us. Let's keep building the teams pass protection and pass rush, then see who we can get in the late second or early third.
Then we follow Ballard's philosophy and let that qb compete with hoyer and brissett for the job.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Colt Classic]

How did Mariota go from winning a playoff game to where he is now?

[Mr. Session]

I agree that a great qb will have us in a position to win. I just don't think we will without spending too much. Burrow and tuna are likely off the table for us. Let's keep building the teams pass protection and pass rush, then see who we can get in the late second or early third.
Then we follow Ballard's philosophy and let that qb compete with hoyer and brissett for the job.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I'm with you.

The mocks that have us taking Love @ 13 make me uncomfortable.

go DB, DT, OT, WR; Whatever. Don't reach on the QB and if the team crashes and burns again next year perhaps we will be in position to draft the right guy.

[rm1369]

I agree that a great qb will have us in a position to win. I just don't think we will without spending too much. Burrow and tuna are likely off the table for us. Let's keep building the teams pass protection and pass rush, then see who we can get in the late second or early third.
Then we follow Ballard's philosophy and let that qb compete with hoyer and brissett for the job.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

To me there is almost no price too high for a great QB. The issue is of course the risk in moving up and being wrong, but a really good team will likely be wasted without having a QB so to me standing pat carries substantial risk as well. I do agree that they need to look at shoring up OT. If they don’t move up for a QB this year (or take one at 13) solidifying the line is probably the next best thing they can do for the QB position long term.

As far as letting guys compete, QB is the one position I’m not a fan of having a competition for. If you have 3 guys battling for the starting QB job, you simply don’t have a starting quality QB.

[rm1369]

I'm with you.

The mocks that have us taking Love @ 13 make me uncomfortable.

go DB, DT, OT, WR; Whatever. Don't reach on the QB and if the team crashes and burns again next year perhaps we will be in position to draft the right guy.

I’m uncomfortable about Love at 13 because of the concerns I’ve seen about his accuracy and understanding of defenses. The second MAY be able to be taught, but the first I think is hard to improve. I seen an article discussing it before, but my basic understanding is people talk about changing mechanics and footwork etc, but guys that have made it to this level and still aren’t accurate usually don’t get fixed.

[Dam8610]

No to Love. Not at 13. Maybe at 34, but I'd prefer to get a QB like him on Day 3. I'm not big on QBs with accuracy issues, so I'm going to be lower on Herbert and Love than most.

[Pez]

To me there is almost no price too high for a great QB. The issue is of course the risk in moving up and being wrong, but a really good team will likely be wasted without having a QB so to me standing pat carries substantial risk as well. I do agree that they need to look at shoring up OT. If they don’t move up for a QB this year (or take one at 13) solidifying the line is probably the next best thing they can do for the QB position long term.

As far as letting guys compete, QB is the one position I’m not a fan of having a competition for. If you have 3 guys battling for the starting QB job, you simply don’t have a starting quality QB.

I take your points here as well. I'm not saying that if we somehow managed to trade up (more or less two years worth of picks) to get Burrow, he would be demolished behind this line, as that is not likely to be the case, but:

1. He will have a defense that is not remarkably improved
2. He will have questions at OT with Constanzo and Smith
3. He will have the same WR questions that Brissett had
4. He will have thin depth at TE with Ebron's departure

My $0.02 uninformed scenario:

1. Address OT with our first, and pick up a reasonable OT from free agency also. If Costanzo re-ups, we will get improvement at guard with Smith moving inside (Nelson, Smith and Kelly in the middle of our line would be fantastic.
2. Address DE with our first second and see if Eason lasts to our second second, if not, use our second second for WR.
3. Get best QB with our third
4. Get WR or TE with 4th.

I don't like how my scenario fails to address WR until the 4th (or perhaps late 2nd).

I think at the end of the day when fans think stuff like this through you have to admit that we have zero idea of what Ballard will actually do.

I just don't want to see us trade two years worth of development to get a franchise QB that we cant keep upright or cant support with an improved defense.

[Pez]

Another scenario if we are not going to trade up for a QB is that we trade down our first for another second and another 3rd. Get the best QB available with our first second rounder, then use our remaining two seconds rounders on OL & DL... then we would have two thirds to address WR and TE.

[omahacolt]

No to Love. Not at 13. Maybe at 34, but I'd prefer to get a QB like him on Day 3. I'm not big on QBs with accuracy issues, so I'm going to be lower on Herbert and Love than most.

But what if they have good 40 times

[rcubed]

Another scenario if we are not going to trade up for a QB is that we trade down our first for another second and another 3rd. Get the best QB available with our first second rounder, then use our remaining two seconds rounders on OL & DL... then we would have two thirds to address WR and TE.
Dont just take the "best available QB" in the second round. thats seem dumb. If you really like a guy and he is there, fine. but dont just take one to take one.

[Puck]

Take Kinlaw .

[Colts And Orioles]

o


The youngest Manning brother is retiring from the Giants after 16 seasons ....... his everlasting image to most will be of his improbable breaking away from being sacked by several New England Patriot defenders late in the 4th quarter of Super Bowl XLII, and then the equally improbably catch on that same play by David Tyree.



https://media2.giphy.com/media/hiYItCpteRurC/source.gif

o

[rm1369]

I take your points here as well. I'm not saying that if we somehow managed to trade up (more or less two years worth of picks) to get Burrow, he would be demolished behind this line, as that is not likely to be the case, but:

1. He will have a defense that is not remarkably improved
2. He will have questions at OT with Constanzo and Smith
3. He will have the same WR questions that Brissett had
4. He will have thin depth at TE with Ebron's departure

......

I just don't want to see us trade two years worth of development to get a franchise QB that we cant keep upright or cant support with an improved defense.

I think one thing to remember is that with JB in place it’s entirely possible, maybe even likely, that even if they move up to get someone he sits this first year. That means you have two offseasons to address issues. Their draft capital would be diminished, but not gone. And they still have tons of cap space.

If AC retires then LT admittedly becomes a huge concern, but the others wouldn’t be a huge issue. I think the rest of the roster is good enough to support a young QB. Much better than most teams that take a guy high. I’m much more concerned with getting the right guy. If he’s in this draft and you can get him then pull the trigger and let him sit a year and learn. Trying to improve the roster first may help them develop but it would also make him harder to acquire too. If they pass this year (and don’t push draft picks forward) I’m not sure when they have this ammunition again with an improving roster. Loose that extra 2nd and draft at 18-22 instead of 13 and it becomes even harder to move up.

[Pez]

I think one thing to remember is that with JB in place it’s entirely possible, maybe even likely, that even if they move up to get someone he sits this first year. That means you have two offseasons to address issues. Their draft capital would be diminished, but not gone. And they still have tons of cap space.



If AC retires then LT admittedly becomes a huge concern, but the others wouldn’t be a huge issue. I think the rest of the roster is good enough to support a young QB. Much better than most teams that take a guy high. I’m much more concerned with getting the right guy. If he’s in this draft and you can get him then pull the trigger and let him sit a year and learn. Trying to improve the roster first may help them develop but it would also make him harder to acquire too. If they pass this year (and don’t push draft picks forward) I’m not sure when they have this ammunition again with an improving roster. Loose that extra 2nd and draft at 18-22 instead of 13 and it becomes even harder to move up.

Well said, if castanzo retires, is LT a bigger priority than qb?

Thinking this through I would not be surprised if we trade down. If we cant get a generational qb, then let's trade down to have more capital to trade up next year.

I'm continually surprised how all these different roads lead to costanzo. If he retires it will be a completely different calculus.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Pez]

I think it's safe to say that this draft and offseason will define Ballard.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Luck4Reich]

o


The youngest Manning brother is retiring from the Giants after 16 seasons ....... his everlasting image to most will be of his improbable breaking away from being sacked by several New England Patriot defenders late in the 4th quarter of Super Bowl XLII, and then the equally improbably catch on that same play by David Tyree.



https://media2.giphy.com/media/hiYItCpteRurC/source.gif

o

I appreciate the hell out of Eli for beating Brady and the cheats twice!

[apballin]

Only way I’d be ok taking Love is if we sign a big name defensive guy gotta solidify the trenches on defense

[rm1369]

Well said, if castanzo retires, is LT a bigger priority than qb?


Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

For me, no - a QB is priority. But again, I’m more worried about getting the right guy than in having it be this year, so I’d see taking a LT at 13 and then trading 34 and 44 for 1sts next year as a pretty good alternative to getting a QB this year. Solidify the line and have potentially 3 1st rounders next year to make a move.

[Puck]

Take Kinlaw and dont hesitate . He's the next Donald or the Warren Sapp of the Tampa 2

[Pez]

Take Kinlaw and dont hesitate . He's the next Donald or the Warren Sapp of the Tampa 2I have come around to this way of thinking as well. He fits need and will likely be BPA at 13, regardless of Love is still.on the board.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Racehorse]

I have come around to this way of thinking as well. He fits need and will likely be BPA at 13, regardless of Love is still.on the board.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I hope teams that also need a QB will see us with the QBs and try to move ahead of us and let Kinlaw slip down to us. Then we sign a young vet (not Brady or Rivers) to play QB next year.

[YDFL Commish]

Take Kinlaw and dont hesitate . He's the next Donald or the Warren Sapp of the Tampa 2


I would be very happy with that result.

[Maniac]

I hope teams that also need a QB will see us with the QBs and try to move ahead of us and let Kinlaw slip down to us. Then we sign a young vet (not Brady or Rivers) to play QB next year.

Free agency starts before the draft, so we'll know before the draft what the QB situation looks like, unless they do some kind of draft day trade if another team like the raiders drafts a QB and will deal their current QB.

[Spike]

I hope teams that also need a QB will see us with the QBs and try to move ahead of us and let Kinlaw slip down to us. Then we sign a young vet (not Brady or Rivers) to play QB next year.

I agree. Someone like Bridgewater or Carr would be good. Definitely better than JB.

[Colts And Orioles]

o


A sexual abuse cover-up story, regarding the New Orleans Saints and the Roman Catholic archdioceses .........



Saints Seek to Prevent Release of E-mails Related to Work on Catholic Abuse Crisis

(ESPN.com News Services)

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28554352/saints-seek-prevent-release-emails-related-work-catholic-abuse-crisis

o

[Chromeburn]

Saw this on the walterfootball rumors section. Walter football gets fed a lot of mis-information especially about the draft. But I don’t see any strategy benefit to misleading them on a FA signee.

One of the top free agents in 2020 will be Seattle Seahawks defensive end Jadeveon Clowney, and Clowney has stated a team's likelihood of Super Bowl contention is a key factor for his signing. WalterFootball.com has learned from league sources that the Indianapolis Colts are one of the teams are expected to make a run at signing Clowney. The Colts have a ton of salary cap space and money to spend, and they could use an impactful player on their defensive line. Clowney would also be a great scheme fit in Matt Eberflus' defense. Signing with Indianapolis would also give Clowney the opportunity to play the Texans twice per year, and going against his former team could be a nice perk to signing with Indianapolis. There could be a competitive market for Clowney, and his preference for Super Bowl contenders could rule out some teams, but sources tell me the Colts are going to be a team in serious pursuit of the star defensive end.

[Colt Classic]

I'll believe it when I see him here in Indy at the press conference.

[Luck4Reich]

I wouldn't mind a Dline of Clowney/Kinlaw/Autry/Houston