Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts Roster Moves (Countdown to 53)


TKnight24

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, RockThatBlue said:

I don't buy that this trade means bad news for Luck. Maybe Ballard was not happy with Tolzein and/or Morris. Jacoby probably is better than both of those two. Luck could still only be gone a few games.

I agree.  If Morris can't learn the playbook (speculation), then he's never going to see an NFL game for us.  Tolz is the backup and Brissett backs him up.  Morris gets cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious to find out who initiated the trade.  CB doesn't have the Patriots history like we do so he is more likely to be less emotional.  History of Patriots trades usually work out for their benefit because they have no emotional attachment to their players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farns01 said:

Curious to find out who initiated the trade.  CB doesn't have the Patriots history like we do so he is more likely to be less emotional.  History of Patriots trades usually work out for their benefit because they have no emotional attachment to their players.

My guess is the Patriots. With Edelman out, they took a hit to their WR corps. Additionally, they're in win now mode so they need a WR to replace Edelman rather than waiting. Garrapolo is likely going to be their starter once Brady retires, so Brissett wasn't needed. Ballard didn't draft Dorsett, so he won't have any emotional attachment. He probably thought that Dorsett wouldn't break out or wasn't that high on him and agreed to a deal because Brissett was a young backup that could be here for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IndyScribe said:

My guess is the Patriots. With Edelman out, they took a hit to their WR corps. Additionally, they're in win now mode so they need a WR to replace Edelman rather than waiting. Garrapolo is likely going to be their starter once Brady retires, so Brissett wasn't needed.

A Win Win for both sides

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was pretty hard to find posts extolling the virtues of Phillip Dorsett here for the last few years, we had a decent chance of cutting him today, they trade him for what is likely a better backup QB than we currently have on roster, and people are freaking out.... lmao.....  proving that fan stands for fanatic.  ; )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shafty138 said:

It was pretty hard to find posts extolling the virtues of Phillip Dorsett here for the last few years, we had a decent chance of cutting him today, they trade him for what is likely a better backup QB than we currently have on roster, and people are freaking out.... lmao.....  proving that fan stands for fanatic.  ; )

So true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

A Win Win for both sides

I agree. I think people are upset mainly because we traded with the Patriots. Realistically, Dorsett was never going to net anything good. He was probably going to get a 5th rounder at best. With Brissett, Colts get a young backup that has a few years left and could stay here for a while if he turns into a good backup. They could also flip him for picks later, if he plays really well. From what I've seen, Brissett was going to be flipped for picks, but decided to go with Dorsett because another SB victory > future draft picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IndyScribe said:

I agree. I think people are upset mainly because we traded with the Patriots. Realistically, Dorsett was never going to net anything good. He was probably going to get a 5th rounder at best. With Brissett, Colts get a young backup that has a few years left and that could stay here for a while if he turns into a good backup. They could also flip him for picks later, if he plays really well.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't like the trade because we have so many other positions of need.  Plus, there were rumors that the Pats were going to release him anyway.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shafty138 said:

It was pretty hard to find posts extolling the virtues of Phillip Dorsett here for the last few years, we had a decent chance of cutting him today, they trade him for what is likely a better backup QB than we currently have on roster, and people are freaking out.... lmao.....  proving that fan stands for fanatic.  ; )

I just have an issue with trading with the Pats.  They will get better and we won't see any improvement because Brissett will look as bad as the rest of our QB's because the talent pool and coaching of the Pats is a lot better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Yup, here comes people acting like the whole forum hated Dorsett.

Plenty of people had been defending him and saying we shouldn't cut him, saying that he'd been misused.

plenty i s subjective.....  I liked Phil, and always thought he could be much better utilized..... but it's nowhere near a majority that thought we should keep the guy over say, Rogers even.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

It was pretty hard to find posts extolling the virtues of Phillip Dorsett here for the last few years, we had a decent chance of cutting him today, they trade him for what is likely a better backup QB than we currently have on roster, and people are freaking out.... lmao.....  proving that fan stands for fanatic.  ; )

 

Agreed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

plenty i s subjective.....  I liked Phil, and always thought he could be much better utilized..... but it's nowhere near a majority that thought we should keep the guy over say, Rogers even.....


That's fair. But how do we know the people saying they don't particularly like the trade are the same ones who said that about Dorsett?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dorsett was in a bad position here... with TY and Moncrief, he was open a lot in games but not targeted.  And a few times he was, it was a spectacular long play  or a heart stopping drop. I've despised out backyp QB situation, now I'm not quite as displeased.  Just that it took one of our 1st round picks to secure him, but BB did spend a 3rd round pick on the guy.  All of our backup QB's are/were UDFA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IndyD4U said:

This place amazes me. We trade a WR that hasn't done squat for a backup QB that is better than any active QB on the team and y'all are throwing a fit. 

 

I think it's freaking brilliant. 

never seen such an overreaction for trading a player who contributed next to nothing for 2 seasons in a position of strength (WR), for another useful young player in a position of need (Back up QB).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fisticuffs111 said:


But how do you know the people saying they don't particularly like the trade are the same ones who said that about Dorsett?

that's the mystery of the interwebs......   I'm not going to research post history for every negative trade comment, but I would venture to say that there is some overlap..... it's just the nature of the series of tubes that we exchange information on...... ; )  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IndyD4U said:

This place amazes me. We trade a WR that hasn't done squat for a backup QB that is better than any active QB on the team and y'all are throwing a fit. 

 

I think it's freaking brilliant. 

You do have a point, almost everyone hates Dorsett and says he's a bust then we trade him for a decent backup QB and people are moaning haha. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it. I liked Dorsett so I do have a minor problem with it but most in here complained about him more than anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't like the trade because we have so many other positions of need.  Plus, there were rumors that the Pats were going to release him anyway.

 

 

 

Even if true, some other QB starved team would claim a QB with potential taken in round 3 on waivers before he ever gets to the Colts.  CB wants a guy, you go get the guy. Period.  Otherwise you likely don't get him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IndyD4U said:

This place amazes me. We trade a WR that hasn't done squat for a backup QB that is better than any active QB on the team and y'all are throwing a fit. 

 

I think it's freaking brilliant. 

Bunch of Grigson apologists who kept thinking that he was the next Antonio Brown. These are the people who said he was misused. Even when I said "If Dorsett was good they'd use him", people literally tried to insinuate that coaching staff was just too incompetent to use his clear talent. No he's traded and those same people don't want to admit that they were wrong. I'm enjoying this topic and trade immensely. Ballard is getting rid of all these terrible Grigson players that people on this forum were hung up on and it's great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Even if true, some other QB starved team would claim a QB with potential taken in round 3 on waivers before he ever gets to the Colts.  CB wants a guy, you go get the guy. Period.  Otherwise you likely don't get him.

 

Got that, but is he really a guy you want to get?  So many needs for players that could contribute either as rotational starters or decent backups.  Heck, I would have rather had a 5th round draft pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

I know people said the same about Allen, but I really do think Dorsett will be very good for them.

I don't really like this trade at first glance. Dorsett looked good when he actually got the opportunity this preseason.

 

  Well, Brady can probably hit him on a slant.  Lucky, not so much.

  We will put a better long term prospect on the PS than what Dorsett offers.
   Big receivers that can block. Heck yow!

    And an excellent prospect as a #2 QB under contract thru 2019. 
   Jackpot for our Colts.  Great job Ballard. woohoooo    :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This trade makes sense once you get over the initial shock of it all. Our backup QB situation hasn't been confidence inspiring and many posters on here have said as much. Flipping a guy who for whatever reason wasn't working out for a talented, promising, cheap QB is a good idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not really.   There's a theory that Ballard wants to draft an OL high because he said it's important to protect the QB, and Richardson was hurt last year. And the counter was that Richardson's injury/s probably aren't about the level of OL protection, and drafting an OL high wouldn't address that concern.
    • I'm thinking if we can trade to 8 or 9 and draft Odunze , we should do it if the price is reasonable. The value chart shows giving up P 15 and P 46 is the perfect number. Probably won't do it and I would think 2025 2nd for a 2024 4th added to the deal would make it work . That of coarse would depend on Atlanta or Chicago wanting to move to 15 . Obviously , as we all know , it takes 2 to make a trade.
    • I can too. And that will tell us everything we need to know about how the view him. It will tell us their feelings on the tight end room, and what direction they pick from there will tell us even more.    but if they take him at 15, we won’t know much about what might have happened, as they will be landing someone they had rated highly and fell to them. 
    • Glad that’s over…    if I wanted to argue about it, I would have responded far more in depth than pointing out how you were attempting to gaslight me. I did not. Meaning I was ending my part of whatever the argument was. You “putting a finality to it” and then listing bullet points tells me it was the argument you wanted all along, which makes sense why you brought Grigson up in the first place. Bait, hook, gaslight. Almost got me buddy. You are a funny guy, Doug 
    • Putting a finality on an argument you want to have.   There is a theory that Ballard won't draft a OL high because ARs injuries were not caused by a poor oline.  I felt it important to note that since Luck's major injuries were also not caused by his oline, Ballard could still want to improve it like he did in 2018 simply because AR is The Franchise. And its important to point that out because there has been a running (false) narrative for about 9 years that Luck's oline was the (main) reason for his injuries that kept him out of games.  The (false) narrative is based upon, IMO, a detest of Grigson, and not reality about the facts (or strong rumors) behind the kidney laceration and snowboarding shoulder. Therefore, mentioning Grigson and the (false) narrative was germain to the point about Ballard possibly drafting Oline high this draft to protect AR. Mentioning Grigson shouldn't trigger a CB vs RG discussion, unless people reading it are gaslighted by their own reading lens.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...