Superman

If they get Richardson up to speed this year, JT is going to have a great season. Look at how productive the Eagles were in the run game last year. Richardson is more dynamic than Hurts, and JT is more dynamic than anyone the Eagles have at RB.

Hard disagree. If a top five QB doesn't start right away in Year 1, but becomes a franchise guy for the next decade, it's well worth the trade off.

Very short on experience, and he's not ready. He's one of the most raw QB prospects to go in the first round in recent history. You're right to be skeptical, and I'm on the record with my concerns over the last 2-3 months. I said at one point this kind of pick can get a GM fired, and if Richardson looks bad in two years, I think Ballard and Steichen could be looking for work. But you started your previous post saying you don't know much about him. I suggest you do some homework. Watch his games and you'll see the special traits that have people excited. Read about his upbringing and circumstances and you'll see some grit. You won't understand this pick if you're just scouting the stat sheet. It's a major projection, and you won't get it if you don't try to see around the corner a little bit.

I think the Colts would have been in on Levis. But I'll say I think him skipping his bowl game and the Senior Bowl didn't do him any favors, especially with a team like that Colts that places a lot of value on football character, competitive spirit, and the Senior Bowl.

Listening to Steichen talk, it sounds like no matter who the starter is at the beginning of the season, they'll have a plan to get Richardson on the field sooner than later. I'm eager to see what that looks like, but I hope they have at least a couple of packages for him, and not just short yardage, QB run stuff.

What about everything else Ballard (and Steichen) said? Or what about Ballard's history of favoring high traits prospects? Last week, Ballard basically said it wasn't Levis. At the Combine, he said all the young QBs need a lot of work and development, so acting like 'ready to start Day 1' is a major factor didn't make sense. He said the drop back QB probably isn't the direction of the NFL right now. He also basically said all along that trading up wasn't gonna happen.

Ballard might be the most transparent GM in the league. He basically telegraphed this pick for two months, and we could have just believed in what he was saying and figured this out.

Why should it?

@stitches You did it!

By tomorrow we'll be hearing that none of his teammates came to his birthday party...

On Levis, from the SI article:

I watched a handful of his games a few months ago, there's something there at times. But he's small, not super athletic, he'll turn the ball over, his decisions are iffy at times... I don't have a strong opinion on him either way tbh.

What?

Merged with the poll thread.

The Manning ESPN show is called "On the Clock." I found it to be less than insightful, basically a waste of time. The viral comments about Levis being the real deal are basically all that was relevant in the entire episode, IMO. It's highly scripted, really sanitized, and at best you get to see Peyton and Eli talk about a QB they like, while avoiding saying anything negative about him. And even in that super friendly, totally safe environment, Levis seemed like he was performing the entire time. It's weird, but there's something there... Also, this might have absolutely nothing to do with whether he can be a good pro QB. I'm not saying it does. It's just a side point for me.

Look, I'm not usually too worried about this stuff, but something about him just makes me think he's fake. That's probably unfair, I don't know the dude, and you can't really know someone from a handful of viral moments on the Internet.

I want Stroud, but I think we'll draft Richardson. Stroud is my QB1. He's accurate, strong arm, good footwork in the pocket, good balance, decent size with the ability to get stronger, and I think he can still get better as a passer. He's not the most exciting guy, but he can make all the throws, and despite his limited athleticism I think he's good enough to be a top ten QB in the NFL. The S2 stuff doesn't move the needle for me. But it's a fact that he's not a dual threat guy, and that he had a very favorable situation at Ohio State, more favorable than any other QB in this year's draft, IMO. Still, I think he's more than capable of being a better pocket passer in Year 1 than most QB prospects ever become. So he's my first choice. Richardson seems to be the guy the Colts would want. I'm extrapolating a lot from the history of the coaching staff, the trends in the league, the Colts' openly acknowledging that they'd consider Lamar Jackson (although that could be diplomacy more than anything else), Ballard's historical attraction to athletic prospects, and a few other bread crumbs. Richardson is super gifted, as physically impressive as any QB prospect ever (maybe the most impressive). He has a great arm, great size, he's super strong, he survives contact, both in the pocket and on the move. And as good as he can be as a scrambler/runner, he doesn't panic and run every time he's pressured; yet he still has an incredible pressure:sack ratio. Of course, he's extremely raw, and his current limitations are so drastic that, worst case scenario, he might not even be able to function in an NFL offense. But our coaching staff has experience with slowly working a gifted QB into the game, and I think they'd be very confident that they could do the same with Richardson. One little gem of info: the Eagles QB coach last season was Brian Johnson, who was rumored to be in consideration for the Colts OC position when Steichen got hired (Steichen all but admitted he wanted Johnson, but the Eagles made Johnson OC). Johnson was at University of Florida when they recruited Richardson. So just another tangential connection between Richardson and the Colts. Levis: I don't know about him. Physically gifted, has some technical issues that seriously bug me, and I feel oddly suspicious of him. This is not about unpeeled bananas, mayo coffee, or shirtless pics. I don't even mind the "I have a cannon" comment. But something about the way he talks and interacts, he seems really rehearsed, and even when he's trying to be down to earth and sincere, it comes off as a performance. I keep coming back to Bo Callahan (curse you, Kevin Costner!) There are rumors that he's arrogant, maybe entitled; I don't think my opinion is compromised by Internet whispers, I generally don't put stock in stuff like that, but when I watch/listen to him, something seems questionable. At this point, I don't think he would be the Colts choice at #4. Young: Simple for me, he's too small, and doesn't have other physical traits to make up for it. His arm is mid, and he has a reputation for being able to make plays with his legs, but he's not as fast or as quick as people seem to think he is. I think he can have some success, but I think the odds of him excelling and lasting long in the NFL are pretty low. Hooker: Lots of physical talent, but I don't think he's been tested in college in any way that proves he can perform in the NFL. The Tennessee scheme is a cheat code. You need a strong arm and some accuracy to run it, so credit there, but it's really unconventional. Also, he barely looked like even a college QB until he connected with Josh Heupel, and by then, he was 23 years old, playing against guys who were 3-4 years younger than him. I think he has a lower ceiling than everyone else.

Draft is less than a week away. Ballard has done his pre-draft presser, and all the visits are done. So let's weigh in. First, which QB do you want the Colts to draft? Second, which QB do you think the Colts will draft? I'm including the top five guys, plus an option for "none of these." I'm listing them in alphabetical order. Your vote will be public. Poll will close Thursday at 12 noon, Pacific.

It's like Aaron Donald and the cast of Jersey Boys.

This is a good point. Every fan wants to see their team win. But as a Colts fan for the last couple decades plus, I get a measure of joy out of seeing guys who were around in the early 2000s and beyond being closely associated with the team. Having a Ring of Honor and celebrating that core of players is special, and some of them are even HOFers. I think those memories and the joy and excitement around them are a big part of being a fan. Compare that with fans of the Miami Heat, who enjoyed seeing their team go to the Finals four years in a row, but they probably don't connect with LeBron James and Chris Bosh (maybe?) and Ray Allen and Shaq that strongly. Their guy is Dwayne Wade, and almost everyone else was hired guns. Udonis Haslem is probably more celebrated by Heat fans than LeBron. Or Pats fans who appreciate Kevin Faulk far more than they appreciate Corey Dillon, who was a much better player, but was only there for a short time. So having a team that kind of grows together and has several years of success together, etc., has a different kind of appeal than just throwing a team together that has a short burst of success, even if the short burst results in a Super Bowl. I think the Eagles are trying to do what you're suggesting -- lock down the QB, and try to extend a short but intense window of contending, with the expectation that you're going to need to retool within a couple years. The Hurts contract apparently has low cap hits in the first four years, then explodes in the last two. They obviously want to keep this core together and try to maximize what they have now, and then they'll restructure what they need to moving forward, but their intention is to support the QB as much as possible. And that's probably what every team should do, once they're confident they have the right QB. It's just important to acknowledge that the bill always comes due, and I don't think the people who claim the cap isn't real actually pay attention to what these teams wind up doing to settle the bill. The Rams are a pretty extreme example right now. The Bucs also, and I think they kind of fly under the radar because of all the other changes they've made -- new coach, QB retired, other short term players are gone -- but they're pretty severely restricted this season also, which is why Baker Mayfield and Kyle Trask are their QBs right now, while they have a $35m cap penalty for Tom Brady.

Yeah, the Mahomes contract is huge in total value, but there's nothing else about it that seems like a win for Mahomes. Through the first three seasons, he's been paid just under $75m (so an average of $25m/year, at a time when the yearly average for top five QBs is between $45-50m). The staggered guarantees (and restructures) effectively ensure him $207m in the first five years, which is still a discounted rate, during a period in which he has been the league's best QB. And he basically has no leverage, because he's under control through the 2031 season, when he'll be 36. So his entire prime, he's locked into a below market contract. And if the Chiefs refused to renegotiate (or honor whatever wink-wink understanding may have been implied when the contract was initially done), Mahomes would have to either hold out, or threaten to retire, to get them back to the table. For some perspective, before the Colts and Andrew Luck agreed to his big contract, Jim Irsay was talking about how Luck would be paid close to half a billion dollars over the next decade. That was sometime before the 2016 season. Four years later, Mahomes (who already had an MVP and a SB ring) signed for $450m over ten years. Three years later, Mahomes is now the sixth highest paid QB in yearly average, and Lamar Jackson, Justin Herbert, and Joe Burrow are waiting in the wings. So yeah, that contract might be the most team friendly QB contract of all time. Now, if the Chiefs maximize their remaining cap space and continue to win SBs, it might put Mahomes in the conversation for greatest player of all time. I think that's the vision that he'd have to be sold on to agree to this deal. And he'll still make a ton of money along the way, just not quite as much as he probably could.

The Bucs are pretty tight this year and next year. They have $74m in dead cap in 2023 ($35m for Brady alone), and right now they're only $3m under the cap, with the draft class accounted for. They're projected to have less than $30m cap space next year, so they'll have some work to do. But they aren't struggling to put together a complete roster. While they did some restructures in 2021, that was mostly because the cap went down for the first time in a decade, out of nowhere. And they lost some players to FA last year. And they didn't trade away a bunch of first rounders, multiple years in a row. So even now, they have some flexibility that the Rams don't have. But 2024 is gonna be rough, they only have 29 players under contract next year. There's more flexibility with the longer contracts, but the Mahomes/Allen contracts are starting to look like bad deals for the players. The Mahomes contract was always slanted toward the team, and they've done two restructures already. Allen just did his first restructure. Schefter reported the Hurts contract has relatively low cap hits for the first FOUR years, leaving about $180m to account for in the last two seasons, so it's pretty obvious they'll be doing a restructure by 2027, and that's best case scenario. He could fall apart or seriously regress before then, and there's basically nothing the Eagles can do. And Mahomes will still have FIVE years left on his contract, at a yearly average less than what today's market value is. And what's going on with the Rams (and Bucs) is only partly about the QBs.

There was a lot of discussion about this last year. The Rams won the SB, then spent a bunch of money. The response from a lot of people was that the salary cap isn't real, because if the Rams can manipulate the cap rules to keep their core together AND add good players, then what good is the cap? They had a cap figure of about $200m, but spent $284m in cash. Fast forward to today. First, the Rams had an injury plagued season and only won five games. This would usually pay off with a high draft pick; the Rams would have owned the 6th pick, but they traded that pick to the Lions for Matt Stafford (along with their 2022 first rounder, 2021 third rounder, and Jared Goff). Then, the Rams were projected to be well over the 2023 salary cap, and to be compliant, had to make cost-saving moves. They released Leonard Floyd and Bobby Wagner -- two contributing members from their 2021 SB team. They traded Jalen Ramsey for a third rounder and a ST TE. Today, they're trading Allen Robinson -- one of the high profile players they signed in 2022 -- to the Steelers, swapping 7th round picks, and paying $10m of his $15m salary in 2023. In total, they're paying Robinson $25m over two years, for one year of service, 33 catches, and three TDs. They've easily lost 15 notable contributors from the Super Bowl team. (Sean McVay contemplated walking away because he was not sure he wanted to stick around for a multi-year rebuild.) This season, including their projected draft class signings, their projected cap figure is $214m, and they are $10m under the cap. But their cash spending is only projected around $175m, so far. The discrepancy is because of the dead money from restructures, trades, and releases that they've done over the last two years to manipulate the cap. And the worst part? They only have about 44 players under contract today! That means they still need 9 more active roster players, plus a practice squad. Their starting QB is pretty good when healthy, but he's coming off a weird arm injury at 35 years old, and they don't have a backup QB on the roster. They lost several other starter level players to free agency this year. And they're going to have work to do again in 2024 to field a complete roster while staying under the cap. (So after they restructure Kupp, probably, to get their 2023 roster on the field, they will have pushed some of his cap hit into 2024, when they'll have a similar cap/player problem. How long until Aaron Donald or Matt Stafford are like 'I'm done'?) People mocked Jim Irsay a few weeks ago for offering the Rams as a cautionary tale, because after all, their gambles helped them win the Super Bowl. Their fans -- and most people -- would take this trade without a second thought. But two things need to be acknowledged. (1) Going "all in" does not guarantee a SB; the Rams got VERY lucky in 2021. (2) The current state of the Rams is what "consequences" looks like. They still have some good players, and a good staff. It's possible they can still compete, but they are now a shell of what they were even before they won two years ago, and they're light on draft stock to replenish their roster cheaply. (If they still had #6 this year, they'd be trading back and getting 3-4 players for the price of one.) This is full blown FALLOUT from their very aggressive moves to acquire highly paid players. This is an extreme downside to very aggressive cap management. I would have just bumped the other thread, but it's archived. Just wanted to continue the discussion on this, a year later, when we've seen how things can turn out.

I see the two very differently than you do.