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.

Your wish has been granted. Fromm declared today for the 2020 draft via tweet.


https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/sta...80432544092160

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.

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.

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.

What’s your opinion of Herbert?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.