Superman

I think the decision will be based on what happens in camps and preseason games, not anyone's predetermined ideas and timelines. It makes sense and is super obvious that the offense will be practically the same as what they did with Hurts, and he was the Day 1 starter in 2021, but that was his second season, and he got some playing time and starts in 2020. Also, while Hurts is an easy comp, I think it's relevant that Hurts had way more experience and production in college, and was also around much better coaches -- Nick Saban, Brian Daboll, Lane Kiffin, Lincoln Riley, Cale Gundy, etc. Hurts was a three year starter, and the one year he didn't start was sandwiched in between other seasons in which he was the full time starter. Hurts was likely much further along in his development than Richardson is right now. So while Sirianni and Steichen showed up in Philly and made Hurts the starter, with a developmental plan to expand his responsibilities as QB, that doesn't mean Richardson will be the starter right away in Indy. I do think that they'll have a well considered plan for him, and I expect they'll be flexible with it. But I don't think those decisions will be made before camp/preseason evaluations.

Who do you think Irsay holds most responsible? He was in the room for these conversations, and his input was also influential. He fired Reich, but kept Ballard, and now they drafted a QB in the first round. I do not think Ballard is without blame for the way the QB situation has played out, nor do I think we need to try to identify exactly who to blame for every personnel decision.

He's just sharpening his arrows to shoot them at Ballard and anyone who believes the Rivers/Wentz/Ryan decisions were influenced by Reich and Irsay. If we can isolate Ballard as the party responsible for picking Richardson, then "when AR busts" the blame can be laid solely at Ballard's feet.

I think the Jags are probably for real. They obviously have a QB, finally. They have a proven HC who has won over the team, and he has a strong staff. Their GM has built a SB contender before, primarily by drafting a bunch of really good players; this is his fourth season in their front office, and they seem to be locked in. Whether they keep it going in the right direction, no one knows. But I don't think it's the same old Jags anymore. And that's good. I want our division to be strong, no more cruising through the regular season and getting a distorted sense of how good our team is because the rest of the division is in shambles. If the division is good, then being able to win the division will basically equate to being able to compete with the Chiefs, Bills, Bengals, etc.

First, if Richardson is anyone's guy, it's Morocco Brown. Don't know how anyone can listen and watch what the Colts have put out in the last week and not understand that he's the one who get the ball rolling on Richardson in the first place, and probably who pounded the table the hardest. Second, Randy Mueller -- former NFL GM/exec who's also writing for The Atlantic -- put out a piece earlier today, suggesting that the Colts decision makers might not have been all on the same page for Richardson. It seems like his basis is analyzing the somewhat muted reaction shown in the draft room after the pick was announced. Now seeing this video, it shows that the celebration had already happened, so when the pick was finally announced it was just a few people with some random claps. I bring that up because it should be obvious to those of us who really pay attention to the Colts operation over the last few years -- especially the front office -- that they prioritize building a consensus before draft day. The idea that they would spend the 4th pick on a player that the whole operation wasn't excited about is kind of crazy, much less for a QB. And of course the owner would sign off. So like you said, it misses the point to identify one person who is solely or mostly responsible for the team's value on any drafted player. The Colts' draft operation appears to be as collaborative as any process could be. Obviously the buck stops with Ballard.

The WR market is all over the place, and Pittman had a terrible season last year. Plus the draft value for WRs is a major factor. Not sure what his market is going to be at this point, but it don't really see him being a must keep. He'd have to be really productive this season. I also have no idea what might happen with JT, but if he bounces back, it's likely they'll keep him. I'm waiting to see what happens with Barkley, if anything.

I just think they were building a specific trajectory for a couple years, and Luck retiring derailed that plan. While they should have gone with a rookie QB as early as 2020, but definitely by 2021 -- and I say that with the benefit of hindsight, but apparently they seriously considered drafting QBs each year -- they delayed the inevitable. It seems like Reich was a big factor in those decisions; he's gone now, and that's probably a big reason why. I also never took the 'all chips in' comment as being about strategy, but about attitude. Either way, it didn't pay off, unless you count getting the #4 pick so we could draft AR. At this point, the direction of the team is directly tied to the play of the young guys across the roster. We know what Nelson, JT, Pitt, Buckner, Grover, Leonard, etc., can do, when healthy. What will determine if this team is able to really compete in the next 3 years will be how the young guys you mentioned perform -- AR, Cross, Raimann, Paye, Dayo, all the DBs, Pierce, Woods, etc. If it were up to me, I probably would have moved Kelly and Moore, not because they can't play, but because of positional value and age, but they at least provide a good baseline as long as they're healthy. I was growing very frustrated with decision making and the state of the roster last season. Before Reich was fired, I was starting to check out. The end of 2021 and beginning of 2022 were not fun. Since then, aside from the Saturday situation, I think they've done the right things to reset the direction. And ultimately, the Saturday situation didn't really hurt anything, it was just messy and unnecessary. But that all seems so long ago now. If AR and half the young guys hit, we probably won't even remember 2022.

No one is going to listen to this, but I'm gonna say it anyway: Don't get your hopes up. Free agents include Pittman, JT, Grover, Rigo, Blackmon, etc. Plus about $15m to sign the draft class (this year's class is $17m). Don't expect a huge windfall in FA next year.

Ballard was prepared to have his heart broken when he heard AZ had traded the pick. They might have had to destroy the footage if someone had taken AR at #3... Also I liked the beginning when he said 'turn that camera off.' The Colts ran such a tight ship during the coaching search and the pre-draft process, and still let the fans in with this video series. And ultimately, got their guy, their way. Really nice job all around.

Yeah I think it matters to the rest of the players also. Don't want to punt on the season when you have some momentum and a QB who's playing reasonably well. But if we're working Richardson in all along, then it shouldn't be a drastic switch if/when it happens, and everyone will recognize that it's been the plan all along.

It's 33 minutes long, makes up for only getting two this year. And the first 1:40 is already exciting.

We'll see. If Minshew plays like JB did in 2019 and we start 5-2 (which is really optimistic; I think JB was very average, we had a soft schedule, and some things just broke our way), there would obviously be debate about what to do at QB. But I know how I felt then, and I would absolutely support moving to Richardson in that situation. The other factor is whether Richardson is ready. If he looks great in preseason, he could start Week 1. But if it looks rough and Minshew is the starter, the fans won't really know what kind of progress he's making in practice and meetings. So we might have a situation where it looks like we should consider making a change, but the staff holds off because they don't want to put Richardson out there yet. Of course, if they play it the way I hope, we'll see Richardson in certain packages right away, even if he's not the starter. Long story, I don't know if win/loss is the biggest factor, but it could be significant if the team is winning.

No doubt that's what Irsay wants, he even winked at it during his presser.

Would kind of be a good problem to have. But I don't think we'll have to worry about it, because Minshew isn't that good, IMO.

Right now, I assume Minshew starts Week 1. Let's say he looks like a Pro Bowl level QB with whom we can make a run at the division, I think that might influence the strategy regarding Richardson. I also think it's unlikely that Minshew plays well enough for this to be the case. Most likely, Minshew will look like the journeyman/backup that he's mostly been throughout his career, and the plan will continue to be to get Richardson reps as much as possible so he can take over sooner than later. Minshew would have to be really, really good for anything to delay the Richardson plan.

Yeah, I kind of just mentioned this also. For anyone who isn't top tier, the conversation is totally different IMO. Lamar is a former MVP, so you know what kind of ceiling he has. Hurts is just scratching the surface, IMO. But if you have Daniel Jones, or even someone as capable as Alex Smith seven years ago, or Jared Goff four years ago, you can't hitch your wagon to that caliber of QB, so you have try to upgrade. Meanwhile, say with Jones, you can let him run and do whatever he wants, because you're not really expecting him to be your franchise guy for the next decade. I agree with that.

Yeah, I think the other part of it is that it's easier to move on from a QB who isn't top tier, for a variety of reasons. Attitudes are absolutely changing regarding drafting and developing QBs, no doubt about that. But I still think the ideal is that when you draft a guy and get working on him, you hope he'll be around for a decade or longer. And we know that using a QB as a featured runner exposes him to more physical risk. To me, that usage is meant to be a temporary bridge, not a long term strategy. And if, after 4 or 5 years, the QB doesn't look like he's capable of excelling from the pocket, you start getting ready to replace him, and now you're not so much worried about the long term with that player. But with a guy like Josh Allen, who looks capable from the pocket, you start reworking your offense so that he's not taking as much abuse, in hopes you can get a full career out of him. I think the success of the Lamar situation will depend on how effective he can be without being a 1,000 yard rusher, because I don't think he can run like that and stay on the field.

Understood. Do you think a team that has a good QB would typically want to move on from him after 6-8 years for any reason other than health?

That's fair, I probably overstated it. But Vick played college football in an era where teams were not structuring their offense around non traditional QBs, which undermined his production. Richardson played at a time when he fits perfectly what programs want to do with their offense, and his production was undermined primarily by his own lack of refinement as a passer. But you're probably right, elite athletes like this probably transcend typical evaluations, even when they have serious question marks.

Worth it? In hindsight, sure. But going in, I would say I'd expect more. They hit a peak, which is good, but I don't think they maximized a special talent. Part of that might be the player not developing, but I think strategically they failed in some ways. And still got an MVP season and SB appearance, so it's not a failure overall, but still disappointing to an extent. Right now, I'm hoping for more than six seasons and a short peak from Richardson.

Cam almost perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about. He reached significant heights -- MVP, SB -- but he never quite became a proficient pocket passer. And about six years in, injuries started taking their toll. If he was a better pocket passer, he could have changed his game along the way, maybe avoided some of the injuries, and prolonged his ability to be a high level QB. He's both an encouraging precedent and a cautionary tale for a guy like Richardson. It shows how we can deploy a player like that, but also warns us not to turn him into a battering ram for half a decade.

No. He said "it's Shane's call." Then he said it's gonna be tough for him to play the whole season.

First thing for me is that I don't have a problem with them running from the QB position. But I think that style of play will take its toll over time. In fact, Lamar has been hurt in each of the last two seasons, and Hurts got hurt last year. The idea that those guys -- or anyone -- can continue to play that style at QB and not be punished seems crazy to me. And I think everyone involved knows it. I see the money commitment, but I assume that both teams expect those QBs to evolve as time goes on. And both of them are much better in traditional QB areas than they were at the beginning of their careers. I think they both still have some work to do, but the contracts are a bet by the teams that they'll continue to improve in their ability from the pocket. I don't see the contracts as an indication that they intend to keep using them in the same way. Josh Allen's comments support that idea. I don't necessarily agree that accuracy is valued less. I think teams see the athleticism as a mitigating factor, while the QB develops. With new offensive approaches, you can function as an offense even if your QB isn't ready to work from the pocket. And it's better for his development because he's getting live reps, and in theory, his mobility can help protect him at times. But I don't think that's meant to be the final form, not for the offense, nor for the QB himself. That's why I think a guy who is as raw as Richardson, who probably doesn't even get drafted as a QB ten years ago, could go at #4. That's why the Bears are willing to play Fields, even though they can't put together a functional passing game. (And BTW, I think the Bears have been doing it wrong; they need to get the passing game going, because Fields is basically a glorified RB at this point. If the passing game doesn't click in this season, he could be out by 2024.) The ability to get a developing QB on the field sooner while still competing as a team is now fully demonstrated, so more teams will commit to that strategy, even using high picks along the way. And while the Eagles are okay with 24 year old Jalen Hurts running the ball 160 times, that doesn't mean they intend to have 27-28 year old Jalen Hurts running the ball that much. Teams might be willing to turn over the QB position more frequently than in the past, but historically, most QBs don't last as full time starters for a decade anyway. Only the really good ones. But I don't think you even get 6-8 years from a 'featured runner' QB before they get run down, if not seriously injured. If you transition that guy into a more traditional passer, who is still athletic enough to selectively hurt the defense as a runner, you can get a lot more out of him. So 2-3 years from now, Hurts might still be able to have a huge playoff game as a runner, but probably won't be used as a 'featured runner' all season. Ultimately, I think you still have to be able to win from the pocket. Whatever their limitations, Hurts and Jackson are still capable from the pocket, and a lot more accurate than Richardson is at this point. I think it would be a mistake to look at them and think the lesson is that pocket passing and accuracy aren't important anymore.

1) Right there with you. 2) I think the 'featured runner' aspect can help bridge the gap as the QB develops as a passer. The Hurts path is a great blueprint for the Colts to follow. But I don't think a QB can hold up long term being a featured runner. The new Hurts contract signals, IMO, that the Eagles expect him to hold up over the next few years, and I would expect that they'll also begin to reduce his role as a runner. That might happen right away, based on how they've loaded up on all purpose RBs. There's undoubtedly a trend toward more mobile QBs who can play a role in the run game. But I don't think that's necessarily a trend away from QBs who can perform from the pocket. It's just a determination to weaponize the QB's mobility while he develops as a pocket passer. I could be wrong, but I don't think the traditional notion of accuracy is being devalued. I think teams have gotten better at using mobile QBs as they develop. So I think Richardson's athleticism can help make up for his accuracy issues for a period of time, but eventually, he has to be much better in accuracy, including from the pocket. from the pocket.