Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    36,843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    473

Everything posted by Superman

  1. Of course not. This extension for JB takes that off the table. If he's just okay, they'll bring in a young QB to compete with JB -- maybe they already have one in CK?? just a thought -- and they don't have to make a definitive decision one way or the other until after 2020.
  2. The Jags still owe Bortles $4.5m...
  3. The bolded is true. In fact, Brissett threw two meaningful passes last season. One was a hail mary that doesn't matter. The other was the trick play to Luck, and he almost got him killed because the pass was too high. This is a JB problem, not a coaching problem. However, you might as well throw 2017 out. I mean, it's fair from a scouting and development standpoint, but I don't think it's a fair representation of what any QB could do with a decent staff and roster around him. You said Chud and Chuck played a part; I say they completely undermined him. And overall, I'm not the one to pump up JB as a starting caliber QB. But I'm not completely writing him off.
  4. They've always talked about him a way I thought was a little overboard, specifically his play (he seems like a great teammate and person). But they've never talked about him being the QB of the future. They've talked about him possibly being a starter for another team, but until last week, there wasn't a lot of projection of him being a franchise guy. And franchise guys are getting $30m+/year right now. Three years ago, Derek Carr got $25m/year. Jimmy G had seven starts, and got $27.5m/year. This is a 'bridge QB until you prove otherwise, and if you do we still have control' contract. If he has a Pro Bowl season and the Colts are a strong playoff team, I think you'll see contract negotiations that would make him a top 10 guy. If they were just letting him keep the seat warm, they probably wouldn't have extended him.
  5. They might also be waiting to see how the injury situation looks after Week 1. If they have a good idea who the 46 will be, then there's no need to do anything right now. And if you get hit with injuries at a position that you thought was deep, now you have the flexibility to adjust accordingly. So maybe they are set until after the first game. They'll only dress 7 OL, so no need to add anyone right this minute. They have two QBs, although one of them doesn't know the playbook; maybe they'll activate Walker, just in case? The other positions are well stocked.
  6. I think we're both going into this with clear eyes. I'm just emphasizing how bad the offensive coaching was in 2017. You said earlier 'it's not like the coaching staff changed at halftime.' But an analysis of the play calling the second half shows that the coaching staff might as well have changed at halftime, because they called an entirely different game in the second half. You already have a QB with significant limitations -- limited knowledge of the playbook, second year guy, etc. -- and then they severely handcuffed him with incredibly predictable play calling. The bar will be much different this year. I think he's probably a high level stop gap, at best, a bridge QB that can win with a good team around him, but won't get a bad team to the playoffs. But he has a chance to prove me wrong about that. I just hope the staff doesn't settle for replacement level play; if he's not a franchise level guy, they have to go get one before 2020.
  7. I don't get that. Making a long term commitment to JB wasn't an option at this point. There's not enough book on him, and the last time he started he didn't look like a franchise QB. This is a bridge contract to see what he will be, and if he has a great year, they still have a year of leverage, plus two years of tags. If he looks like a bridge QB, they can adjust accordingly. I don't think a big deal for him was ever on the table.
  8. I think the 46 are already in the building. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple more roster moves before Sunday, though.
  9. That's not accurate. To get him to the PS, they have to waive him. A team can claim him, and there's no minimum number of games he has to be on the active roster. If he were already on the PS, a team signing him from the PS would have to keep him on the active roster for at least three weeks. But that's a situation where the Colts would have more options; they could call up a player from the practice squad rather than letting him leave for another team. It's the waiver process that's more problematic.
  10. When you're not the first, the risk is lessened. CK rewarded the Colts with model behavior, and then he backed it up with a strong preseason. He's done everything right this summer, and he's contractually controlled for at least two more years. This is the kind of guy that doesn't get through waivers. And you're right, we could argue back and forth about it but no one can see the future. I'm just saying that's a significant risk, one I wouldn't take. If it were up to me -- and it's obviously not -- CK would stay on the active roster all season, unless I absolutely needed that roster spot at some point. But right now, we have six WRs, four TEs, and four RBs -- I think we're carrying at least one, maybe two extra at those positions. We have 11 DL, and six CBs. Both of those spots are probably overloaded. The one wrinkle is that his contract is prorated and he doesn't cost them a roster spot for the first two weeks. They're keeping him for free, in every way that matters. They were never going to get rid of him after the preseason. The real decision point is after Week 2.
  11. Then we should have drafted better. Or signed a free agent once in a while. Our top three draft picks, from 2006-09: Addai, Jennings, Keiaho (thank goodness we got Bethea in the 6th round) Gonzalez, Ugoh, Hughes Pollak, Wheeler, Tamme Brown, Moala, Powers The defense wasn't bad because we were paying PM too much. It was bad because we didn't draft good defensive players, several years in a row.
  12. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white Not really. Over the next five seasons, the NFL salary cap will probably average more than $200m. If you pay a guy $30m/year -- let's say it's JB, and you hit that average even with a new monster extension after 2019 -- you're still somewhere around 15% of the salary cap. And you have $170m with which to build a solid roster. If you can't build a solid roster around a $30m/year QB, the problem is with your drafting and coaching. Not your roster/cap mechanics. And in the Colts' case, because of the heavy rollover, they'll probably have an extra $10m/year to spend, on average.
  13. I doubt CK would clear waivers, so don't expect to see him on the practice squad.
  14. Neither am I, but in case you want a refresher on just how bad the offensive play calling was in 2017, especially in the second half... One eye popping trend, in the second half, if the Colts had less than 3 WRs on the field, it was almost certain that they were going to run the ball. They averaged ~2 yards/carry in those situations. I don't hold JB blameless, but about 60% of the blame for the offensive inefficiency in 2017 goes to the coaching staff. Another 30% goes to the subpar personnel -- receivers and OL. I'm giving JB about 10% of the blame. That blame pie chart will be a lot different if the offense struggles this year.
  15. I'm not comparing Brissett to those players. I'm asking you a simple question: How many teams let their starting QB play out a contract year? I think you're selling JB short. I'm not the guy pumping him up to be a Pro Bowler; I've always been skeptical of his upside, compared to other fans and even what the team has said about him. But he's not a journeyman backup who has tried and failed with a handful of teams. He's a promising young QB prospect that the team is confident in as their starter. By the way, Osweiler got four years, $72m with $37m guaranteed in 2015, partly because the Broncos got caught in a tough situation with him when his contract expired. He had seven games as a starter. Eight years ago, Fitzpatrick got six years, $59m. Wherever you rank JB in comparison with these guys, the Colts didn't make as big of a commitment to him as those teams made to the guys you just mentioned. ?? It's a two year deal, $30m. They bought out his free agent year at less than market value, and presumably did so with a structure that spreads out the cap hit over two seasons. They weren't going to save any money; he was making $2m this season. They basically tacked on a fifth year option. The bolded is an important caveat, right? If JB had a strong season, the Colts would likely have had to tag him. Now that situation is resolved, and the QB stable is secured for the foreseeable future, assuming JB proves worthy of the starting job. And now they really can go in any direction next season. If Brissett isn't good enough, they can replace him, or bring in a young QB and let them compete. If Brissett has a great year, they can take their time working on a long term deal. The team is now in control, no matter how 2019 goes. That's an interesting assumption. I think the team expects to get starting caliber QBing out of the deal. And if they do, they'll have the ~20th highest paid QB in the league (assuming Prescott and/or Goff get new deals at some point). What's the downside?
  16. How many teams let their starting QB play out a contract year? Brees, Brady, Rivers, etc., guys late in their careers. Now that Brissett is QB1, extending him was the obvious move. If he plays well, they've bought leverage with an extra year of control before we even think about a franchise tag situation, and his two year average is about 40% of what Dak Prescott is asking for. If he doesn't play well, they'll be thinking about drafting a replacement, but you'll still have vets in the room as a buffer. There's no downside to this. And it's not tied to the Luck money. That situation is done. The Colts needed to secure their QB stable without Luck. They've done that, and they have the flexibility to go in whatever direction they want after 2019.
  17. Another no brainer for the Colts. They've taken all serious uncertainty out of the QB situation for the next two years.
  18. This signing was a no brainer. Whether they keep three QBs this season will be interesting, but having a capable backup is obviously very important to the staff. I like Chad Kelly's potential, but I'd prefer Hoyer in a pinch.
  19. Before the preseason, I figured Kelly would make it to through waivers and wind up on the PS. He had a strong preseason and I no longer think he'd clear waivers. And since Luck retired, I don't want them to risk it. They'll keep him.
  20. Absolutely, I'm just saying it's not a made up concern.
  21. I don't know what Josh Rosen is. He had a terrible situation in Arizona, and Ryan Fitzpatrick has been outplaying young QBs for eight years now. I'm open minded on what he'll be, but I disagree with the notion that he's a surefire upgrade over anyone we already have.
  22. It comes from 15 games of watching him play. There are numerous examples of Brissett throwing balls without proper touch.
  23. Is this a real question? Great sound bite, awful team building strategy. It's a terrible analogy. Brissett hasn't had a reasonable set of circumstances so far. He does now. Let's see what he does with it. Rosen was awful last year. It's interesting that you're writing off Brissett, but gassing up Rosen. Brissett had worse circumstances in 2017, and still outperformed Rosen's rookie year. You might have noticed that I've never been one to pretend that Brissett is a star in the making. But I'm not bailing on him before he even gets a chance. They're in much better shape to do that if they keep that WAS #2 in the 2020 draft. Which is why a measured approach is superior to a 'go big or go home to make fans think you're all in on a championship' approach. Doing it right is better than doing it right now.
  24. Ehh, I understand frustration, but I don't co-sign recklessness. I don't think Rosen's book has been written, he was in a terrible situation last year, but I wouldn't just throw him out there with no preparation. That's how you ruin a young QB. And what's really reckless is trading away a significant draft asset to put a young QB in a bad situation, when the team should have their eye on doing everything they can to be in position to draft a new QB if they need to. So I think the team's best option now is Brissett, and I think their best chances of drafting a franchise level guy involve keeping that WAS #2 in 2020. Also, the comparison to Dalton doesn't work for me. Brissett hasn't had anywhere near the kind of opportunity that Dalton had early in his career. The last time Brissett started, it was for a bad coaching staff, with a team he didn't know. If he's bad this year, I'm fine with moving on. But I think he should be giving a chance before you assume he represents 'reveling in mediocrity.' Lastly, Ballard's operation is not going to embrace mediocrity, at any level. Luck or not.
  25. A) That's not giving him or Brissett a real chance to succeed. You're bailing on Brissett, and throwing Rosen to the wolves (again) without a solid foundation in the system. B) If the Colts want to get into the top five of the 2020 draft for a QB, they either have to be awful in 2019 -- which I hope they're not, and I'm assuming they won't be -- or they'll need draft capital to get back into that top range. Your proposal requires trading away a significant draft asset that would be useful in a potential trade up in 2020. I think the sensible and realistic course of action is to ride it out with Brissett. If he's not starting caliber through 2019, they'll consider other options going into 2020. For now, it's his team.
×
×
  • Create New...