Superman

I have no problem with people speculating and predicting like this, it's just not my thing. So when reading the poll options, I felt like I'd be better off just explaining my thoughts, because the answers in the poll questions didn't suit me. I like what they've done this offseason, overall. Still think we need more options at OL, and I'm concerned about ILB, but it was a good reset from where we were a year ago. But I don't have strong opinions, especially about our youngest players, because it doesn't really matter until we see them play. What do you think the odds are that Richardson starts Week 1? If you had to place a bet today...

There's some truth to this. When we traded a 2nd for Vontae Davis, people were complaining because 'we're gonna be bad this season, so it's basically a late first rounder!' Turns out we made the playoffs, so that pick wound up being in the mid 50s. Usually when you draft a QB #1, your team still struggles and you at least get another top ten-ish pick. But we picked at #24, and it just so happened to be one of the worst drafts of the last couple decades. Still, the real problem is that we had multiple bad draft results in a row. And that's not just about where you're picking, it's more about your overall ability to scout, draft, and develop players. As bad as the 2013 draft was, to me it seemed obvious that Rhodes was the better player, but we picked Werner. Then we used our 2014 1st on a bad RB. From 2013 to 2015, we basically drafted two quality starters -- Mewhort and Anderson -- and Mewhort was undermined by injury. We misused a ton of draft capital over those years, and along the way, the strong 2012 draft class started getting injured (Vick Ballard, Dwayne Allen), and/or leaving in FA (Coby Fleener). We also kind of bombed in free agency. So yeah, we didn't have amazing draft capital, but the real issue is that our drafting sucked, player development sucked, and free agents didn't work out. Meanwhile, we had a QB who was good enough to drag the team to the playoffs each year, so there was a false sense of being close to having a contention quality roster.

Seems we're either right in line with one another, or completely opposites. Like alter egos.

Irsay wants his team contending every year. That much is obvious.

Ultimately, the only conversation that would have mattered is one involving Irsay, right? After looking back at what's happened since Reich was fired -- Irsay said 'Ballard isn't going anywhere' at the presser, he said it again after the season, they didn't hire Irsay's friend at HC, they didn't draft one of the more polished QB prospects -- it's not hard for me to just take Irsay at his word. He said he believed in Ballard, and he's supported that statement with actions. I know there's been plenty of speculation, but it mostly seems baseless at this point. And I'm not separating myself from that group; in the past, I have questioned whether Ballard was on the hot seat. I questioned everything after Reich was fired. But looking back with the benefit of more information and results, I think Ballard was always safe, despite what people outside the building may have thought. JMO. As for the Frank factor, I think they acquiesced to Reich's QB preference over the last couple of years, and ultimately that played a big role in him getting fired. I don't think Ballard held back from drafting a QB because he didn't believe in Frank.

Yeesh. I don't think Chris Ballard is, or was, on the hot seat, and I'm thinking that he won't be on the hot seat in the near future. I'm not a 'fire that guy' person, and I generally don't get too up or down on a draft class before the second season is over. And if anyone thinks the Colts drafted Richardson over Levis while being concerned about which player might look the best in Year 1, I think maybe they haven't been paying attention. And I'll say Richardson does not start Week 1.

Yeah it will still be premature, but at least we'll actually be able to see something. Right now, he's Schrodinger's QB.

I think I found a play call clip of his, and it was pretty verbose, like most WCO. But that was back during the coaching search, so not sure if it was him or someone else.

Like a lot of "reports," this one is kind of mixing a lot of so-called information together, painting an unclear picture that leaves a lot to the imagination of the reader. What I read is that the Colts are impressed by his pocket awareness. Doesn't specifically say 'during camp,' so that could refer to what they see on tape. In fact, it mentions things he showed at Florida. But they could be running drills with simulated pass rush -- waving cones or pads around him to simulate a pocket. Then it says that he showed off high level play making during camp. Which, no surprise there. And the main point that I took is that Bremer watched him during a camp practice, and Bremer felt that he's not as raw as expected. I didn't get that the Colts feel he's not as raw as expected. Although, after spending a couple weeks working with him on the playbook, maybe the team could be feeling good about how he's handling the information. Would be concerning to hear 'Richardson is really struggling,' but that never happens. Levis apparently "dominated" rookie camp; Bryce Young made a 'great first impression'; Stroud's 'knowledge is crazy'; even Hooker is apparently a 'great leader' and 'electric to be around,' and he can't even practice yet.

We're going to hear a bunch of glowingly positive stuff about Richardson -- and the other rookies -- all through summer. It might be legit, it might be embellished, whatever. We won't really know anything until training camp, though.

I'll take a stab at this, and try to keep it short. 1) It's easier to be an effective passer in college, so mechanical flaws or inconsistencies are not as big an issue as they are in the NFL. There's a big talent disparity between good college teams and average college teams, passing windows are bigger, pass rush isn't as good, etc. A talented QB has much greater margin for error in college than he will in the NFL, where every defense will punish you for mistakes. 2) Kind of related to #1, passing schemes in college are designed to take advantage of the talent disparity. So, for example, Tennessee doesn't ask their WRs to run pro style routes, they just split them out wide and tell them to outrun the usually lesser talented DBs from Akron or wherever. So the QB isn't going through pro style progressions, which means he doesn't need to take a pro style drop/hitch, the timing is different, etc. The mechanics aren't as big of a factor as they would be in a pro style offense. 3) College athletes are limited in the amount of time they can spend working with the coaches. I know collegiate sports kind of make a joke of the educational aspect of college, but it's still a factor. Class attendance and other student responsibilities take time, and in general terms, players can only spend a certain number of hours practicing. And most teams only have a starting level QB for one or two seasons at a time, so by the time his mechanical improvement starts making a difference, he's leaving your team, making the time investment less valuable to the program. 4) The best football coaches are in the NFL. No doubt there are some good QB coaches in college who can help players refine their mechanics, but no player is going to get better coaching in college than they will in the NFL. So I think all these factors, plus others, combine to create an environment that's not totally conducive to highly technical refinement, especially for QBs.

It makes no effective difference. They restructured to gain some cap space in 2022, and in doing so, borrowed some cap space from 2023. If they didn't, his cap hit in 2022 would have been $6m higher, and we'd have $6m more cap space in 2023. (By the way, the restructure creates the possibility for recouping part of the bonus, even though it's unlikely to happen in this case.) Coincidentally, we rolled forward $6.6m from 2022. This is totally coincidental, but it winds up being a wash.

Terms like "false money" kind of perpetuate the myth that the salary cap isn't real. It's not false; the money is actually paid, and it eventually counts against the team's cap. The Eagles have drafted really well, multiple years in a row, and they have most of their core locked up. However, they're projected about $5m under the cap in 2024, so things will start getting tight. No doubt they'll start moving on from some of their older core in a year or two. And the way they structured Hurts contract helps them keep his cap hits low for now, but it will start to catch up with them. They used staggered option bonuses in the later years of the contract, basically creating up to four voided years after the final year of the contract in 2028. So a lot of the bonus money he's scheduled to be paid will not hit the cap during the life of the contract. But assume he's a top tier QB when he's 30 and entering a contract season, then they'll have to stack a new contract with new bonuses on top of the prorated bonuses from the voided years. Their expectation is that the cap will be nearly $300m by then, and they'll kick the can again.

My understanding is that if he retires, the Colts could try to recoup a portion of the prorated bonus he was paid last season. It's not certain that they would. I wouldn't expect the Colts to get any cap relief related to Matt Ryan's contract. Further, he says he's not retired. Not yet. Mod note: Moving this to NFL General. I understand the cap question is connected to the Colts, but I think the real news is that Matt Ryan is going to CBS.

I don't see 3-4 wins, I see 6-7 wins. That's based on a handful of assumptions. Long story short, I think a lot of things went wrong for the Colts last year. We basically bottomed out. Having a new HC, upgraded offensive staff, new QBing, more experience for some young playmakers, hopefully better health for guys like Nelson, Kelly, JT, possibly Leonard, etc., should raise our floor a little bit. Not having a totally inexperienced outsider at HC for half the season should also be a positive. I won't necessarily be judging the success of this season on the basis of how many games we can win. But I would be disappointed if we can't do better than 3-4 wins.

Already answered by several, but yes, UDFA contracts are always three years, with varying guarantees.

I don't think Grigson did a good job building the roster, and he made several big, obvious mistakes in his time here. Most of his draft picks were out of the league by 2019, which is stunning -- not gone from the Colts, but totally out of the NFL. But I also think the circumstances were challenging. He and Pagano obviously didn't see things the same way at times, and maybe that was exacerbated by Pagano's three month absence. Then Irsay was out of the picture for a while. A lot of weird things happened that could have undermined their relationship, and when you have the two main football guys pulling in different directions, it probably makes it difficult to draft effectively. I'm not saying any of this to excuse Grigson, and I think some of this stuff was mostly his fault. I bring it up to suggest that maybe his draft record isn't the best reflection of his ability to evaluate players. Maybe his role with the Vikings is less about player evaluation, maybe he's really good at overseeing the personnel staff, scheduling, compiling, other logistical stuff. Maybe he's really well connected after 20 plus years in the NFL, and uses those connections to bring value to their operation; he's served on several NFL committees over the years. I don't know for sure what the Senior VP of Player Personnel is supposed to be responsible for, and I bet that role varies from team to team. He doesn't have the greatest public reputation, but he's worked with some really highly rated front office guys and coaches -- Andrew Berry, Howie Roseman, Andy Reid, John Schneider, etc. -- so he obviously hasn't been blacklisted. The only people who actually seem to have anything negative to say about him are connected with the Colts, so maybe his reputation isn't as bad around the league as it is in Indy. I'm not really here to defend him. He was a bad GM, I think he's mostly responsible for ruining Andrew Luck, and I don't care if he's remembered as the worst front office exec of all time. But I think it's obvious that he brings some value to the table for an NFL team, otherwise he wouldn't still be getting cushy exec jobs.

Right, because you say so. We'll just throw out all the nuance and obvious information we've received directly from the Colts over the years, because if it's black and white in your mind, then there's nothing else to it. If the draft decisions are based on the board, and they structure their draft board ahead of time, and the board is based on the information, and the information in collaborative, then isn't the decision the result of collaboration? And that's just draft decisions. Higher level strategic decisions -- like whether to sign or trade for a veteran QB, vs targeting someone in the draft -- are also collaborative, just between different people.

I don't think it explains the Saturday thing. I do think it speaks to the Steichen hire. Even when listen to the things Irsay said about Richardson, it's obvious everyone was looking at the Eagles as something of a model for how to develop and integrate a QB like Richardson. The Saturday thing was really strange, and I don't know if anything explains it, especially with how Irsay defended it at the intro presser. I always felt like there was something more to it, but who knows what that actually was.

I think this is a non story. If there's any proof that someone reached out to Luck or his people, it's tampering, and the league should handle it. Good on Irsay for putting everyone on notice. And if there's no proof, then this goes away quietly, and it makes no difference either way.

That's not what I get. I think Morocco was the guy who was excited about him early on, and went to bat for him. And then he stuck with it until the draft, which makes sense now that we know how connected he is with some of Richardson's people.

I don't think most of this is pertinent. You want to split hairs on what "collaborative" means and doesn't mean, and make up titles and processes. Obviously you desire to frame all of this in a specific way, obviously for a specific reason, and that's your choice. Like you said, folks can attribute decisions to who they want. But it's unnecessary. Ballard is the GM, and the team just used the #4 pick on a raw QB. If Richardson doesn't work out, and especially if one of the other three QBs under consideration winds up being a star for the next decade, it will be a mark against Ballard. No one will argue that this wasn't Ballard's pick, or that he's not responsible for the outcome. At the same time, there's no basis for isolating the other decision makers from this pick. Just like it has been for the last several years -- really, for decades with Irsay -- when decisions like this are made, the owner, GM, and HC are all in the room, they all have input. In just so happens that with the QB decisions in 2020 and 2021, we know that there was dissension in the room, because the decision makers have made it clear. And it just so happens that Reich's background and input were significant factors (and there's nothing wrong with that). But when they come out of the room with a collective decision, they've all bought in. That doesn't mean the GM isn't responsible for the decision, but it's not hard to acknowledge the obvious factors involved. I think Irsay's public comments, along with his decision to keep Ballard and fire Reich, speak volumes about how he assigns responsibility for the QB decisions, and he was in the room. Specific to the Richardson decision, it's obvious that the staff in general were enthusiastic about him. Ed Dodds was open about being skeptical, and after some time, he was on board. Morocco Brown was in from the beginning, Jamie Moore had been on board for months. The HC just ran an offense that seems like a perfect fit for someone like Richardson, and other members of his staff have similar experience with QBs. Ballard obviously was a fan, and he told Dodds a month before the draft who he wanted. Irsay said they would have taken Richardson #1. The staff sat in the draft room holding their breath for half an hour, hoping that their guy would be there, and they celebrated when they realized he would. Everything we saw and heard screams collaboration and consensus. That doesn't mean anyone is trying to build in an escape clause for Ballard. It's unnecessary. Collaboration and consensus do not absolve the GM of responsibility for the roster, and especially not for the QB selected with the fourth overall pick. And I can say that, while at the same time believing that Reich's previous input was a major factor in the QB decisions in recent years. Acknowledging that perceived fact still doesn't mean Ballard is free from responsibility.

Matt Ryan would have exploded trying to throw the ball that far.

Like when?