Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts Record Of Developing Bench Qbs


Recommended Posts

Given the history of the Colts selection of late round (beyond overall pick #160) QBs:

2009 Curtis Painter 6th round (201)

2004 Jim Sorgi 6th round (193)

1996 Mike Cawley 6th round (205)

1990 Gene Benhart 13th round (311)

1989 Wayne Johnson 11th round (296)

1989 Steve Taylor 12th round (323)

1983 Jim Bob Taylor 11th round (280)

1975 Steve Joachim 7th round (160)

1975 Bill Malouf 16th round (392)

1974 Bob Bobrowski 12th round (307)

1973 Tom Pierantozzi 13th round (322)

1972 Van Brownson 8th round (204)

1972 Gary Wichard 16th round (412)

1970 Gordon Slade 7th round (174)

1969 Sam Havrilak 8th round (207)

1969 Larry Good 9th round (232)

1968 Jeff Beaver 15th round (404)

Only Sam Havrilak led the Colts to a SB.

1) Were any of them developed to be a starter?

2) Were any of them successful?

3) Why do some feel that we can draft a QB in later rounds and groom him to be a successor to Peyton Manning now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to your third question, I don't think we can judge the present based on the past Colts QBs. We are in the process of getting a totally new coaching staff and we have a new GM with a different vision and mindset than our previous GM. Just because we didn't develop Sorgi, Benhart or Wichard (2 of whom played before Peyton was even in high school), doesn't mean we can't develop one now. The coaching staff and GM have changed, the entire mentality of the team has changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also imagine some of it had to do with Peyton being an Iron Man and not yielding any quality practice time to the back ups. On top of that, I don't know if we drafted any QB's specifically to play well in the worst case/what if scenario, so much as needing a guy to take snaps with the back ups and provide an extra set of eyes on a defense during games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to your third question, I don't think we can judge the present based on the past Colts QBs. We are in the process of getting a totally new coaching staff and we have a new GM with a different vision and mindset than our previous GM. Just because we didn't develop Sorgi, Benhart or Wichard (2 of whom played before Peyton was even in high school), doesn't mean we can't develop one now. The coaching staff and GM have changed, the entire mentality of the team has changed.

Thanks for the opinion. However, I must note that throughout history, the Colts have undergone several management and coaching changes. Yet what I think is consistent throughout those changes, is the relative inattention paid to developing bench QBs.

There's nothing wrong with putting priorities elsewhere, but maybe it is a bit unrealistic to think that we can do it now, having not been able to do it before.

If Peyton did not yield quality practice time to the backups, why are some so sure he would be willing to mentor (and not simply co-exist with) them now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Peyton did not yield quality practice time to the backups, why are some so sure he would be willing to mentor (and not simply co-exist with) them now?

I agree. And to be honest, I don't think it's fair to Peyton in some ways. It's like saying "Yeah, we know you're nearing the end of your career and you want to win another championship or two ASAP, but we are going to keep you here with a team that has undergone dramatic changes so that you can mentor your replacement". I don't think that's very fair to Peyton. Nowhere in his contract (I assume) does it say "If we draft a QB, you must spend time with him and mentor him". I'm sure if the rookie QB has questions, Peyton will be very helpful, but I don't think Peyton will go out of his way to do anything. He hasn't been raised that way (and I mean that in the best way possible. There are videos I've seen where he says something to the effect of "if I ever needed help, I would have to go to my dad, I wouldn't expect my dad to come to me, that's just how it works").

Peyton wants to win and win now, that's completely understandable. The Colts are a team in flux, with a new coaching staff, new GM and tons of possible roster changes. It's very difficult to say whether we will do something like the Bengals did this year, going from a bad record to a good record in one year. It's possible that with a new scheme on defense, the right pick ups in FA and the draft, a regular offseason, and a healthy Peyton, we are back to being contenders. It's just nearly impossible to predict

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. And to be honest, I don't think it's fair to Peyton in some ways. It's like saying "Yeah, we know you're nearing the end of your career and you want to win another championship or two ASAP, but we are going to keep you here with a team that has undergone dramatic changes so that you can mentor your replacement". I don't think that's very fair to Peyton. Nowhere in his contract (I assume) does it say "If we draft a QB, you must spend time with him and mentor him". I'm sure if the rookie QB has questions, Peyton will be very helpful, but I don't think Peyton will go out of his way to do anything. He hasn't been raised that way (and I mean that in the best way possible. There are videos I've seen where he says something to the effect of "if I ever needed help, I would have to go to my dad, I wouldn't expect my dad to come to me, that's just how it works").

Peyton wants to win and win now, that's completely understandable. The Colts are a team in flux, with a new coaching staff, new GM and tons of possible roster changes. It's very difficult to say whether we will do something like the Bengals did this year, going from a bad record to a good record in one year. It's possible that with a new scheme on defense, the right pick ups in FA and the draft, a regular offseason, and a healthy Peyton, we are back to being contenders. It's just nearly impossible to predict

I agree with you on Peyton's possible perspective on this. This is why I just don't understand why some people use the argument, that Peyton will mentor and teach the backup QBs, to bolster their opinion that using draft picks on any QB to sit behind Peyton makes sense.

IMO, picking a 6th (or later) round QB in the draft is like rolling the dice, with very low probability that he will become another Tom Brady.

If you want to improve those odds, you will have to pick in the earlier rounds for higher-rated QBs. Even in the 2nd or 3rd rounds, the QBs there require development. In this year's draft there is really only one QB prospect who is closest to being NFL-ready, and after him, there is a steep drop-off in terms of learning requirement to become NFL-ready.

This one near-NFL-ready QB prospect is projected to go #1 overall.

Fortunately for the Colts, they own the #1 overall pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on Peyton's possible perspective on this. This is why I just don't understand why some people use the argument, that Peyton will mentor and teach the backup QBs, to bolster their opinion that using draft picks on any QB to sit behind Peyton makes sense.

IMO, picking a 6th (or later) round QB in the draft is like rolling the dice, with very low probability that he will become another Tom Brady.

If you want to improve those odds, you will have to pick in the earlier rounds for higher-rated QBs. Even in the 2nd or 3rd rounds, the QBs there require development. In this year's draft there is really only one QB prospect who is closest to being NFL-ready, and after him, there is a steep drop-off in terms of learning requirement to become NFL-ready. And he is projected to go #1 overall.

Fortunately for the Colts, they own the #1 overall pick.

Hm...I dunno, a lot of people say RG3 is going to be good in the NFL. They think he is ready to start. The 3rd best QB (there's a huge dropoff from 2 to 3) is Tannehill. This is going off Mike Mayock's board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm...I dunno, a lot of people say RG3 is going to be good in the NFL. They think he is ready to start. The 3rd best QB (there's a huge dropoff from 2 to 3) is Tannehill. This is going off Mike Mayock's board

From the scouting reports I have read, RG3 still needs to work on defensive reads, footwork, and progression beyond the first read.

In any case, if the Colts were to draft near NFL-ready QBs, they will need to use their #1 overall pick. In which case, the whole idea of a trade the #1 pick scenario falls apart.

So the stark alternatives are:

1) Use the #1 overall pick and pick a near-NFL-ready QB, or

2) Trade the #1 overall pick for a bounty of picks, of which, use one of the later round picks on a QB that will need development work, which will not be provided by Peyton.

We already know both the near-term historical (Painter) and the long-term historical (see OP) success of the strategy to go with later-round QBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the scouting reports I have read, RG3 still needs to work on defensive reads, footwork, and progression beyond the first read.

In any case, if the Colts were to draft near NFL-ready QBs, they will need to use their #1 overall pick. In which case, the whole idea of a trade the #1 pick scenario falls apart.

So the stark alternatives are:

1) Use the #1 overall pick and pick a near-NFL-ready QB, or

2) Trade the #1 overall pick for a bounty of picks, of which, use one of the later round picks on a QB that will need development work, which will not be provided by Peyton.

We already know both the near-term historical (Painter) and the long-term historical (see OP) success of the strategy to go with later-round QBs.

Hm...what is the situation came up where we trade out first pick to Cleveland for their first pick and a number of other picks. Then they would get Luck and we would get RG3, who is still by far the 2nd best QB in the draft class. He could use some mentoring and stuff (show me any QB who can't), but it would still be possible to develop him without Peyton. It's possible that we trade the pick and stlil get a solid QB without going into the later rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm...what is the situation came up where we trade out first pick to Cleveland for their first pick and a number of other picks. Then they would get Luck and we would get RG3, who is still by far the 2nd best QB in the draft class. He could use some mentoring and stuff (show me any QB who can't), but it would still be possible to develop him without Peyton. It's possible that we trade the pick and stlil get a solid QB without going into the later rounds.

If everything works that way and RG3 is still available at #4. From what I have been reading, several teams are vying for the #2 pick, and are packaging trades for it with the Rams. Concurrent with that, McShay has moved RG3 up on his big board from #6 to #3. I don't think RG3 will be around after the second overall pick.

Therefore any way you want to slice it, you need to use your #1 for that near-NFL-ready QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everything works that way and RG3 is still available at #4. From what I have been reading, several teams are vying for the #2 pick, and are packaging trades for it with the Rams. Concurrent with that, McShay has moved RG3 up on his big board from #6 to #3. I don't think RG3 will be around after the second overall pick.

Therefore any way you want to slice it, you need to use your #1 for that near-NFL-ready QB.

In this year's draft, yes. But there are still guys in this draft and in others found in the later rounds who, with proper coaching and in the proper system, can be and have been successful. For example, look at Matt Schaub, Fitzpatrick, Brady (though he is a rare exception, I can't think of any other HOF QBs found that late), Hasselbeck, Cassel (who I personally don't think is a great QB, but he is alright) and many others. You may not find the next Peyton Manning or Drew Brees in the 3rd to 7th rounds, but you can still find a decent QB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everything works that way and RG3 is still available at #4. From what I have been reading, several teams are vying for the #2 pick, and are packaging trades for it with the Rams. Concurrent with that, McShay has moved RG3 up on his big board from #6 to #3. I don't think RG3 will be around after the second overall pick.

Therefore any way you want to slice it, you need to use your #1 for that near-NFL-ready QB.

Is it mandatory to take a QB this year? You seems to think so but if Manning is healthy why cant we take one next year? Its already turning out to be a strong class next year, with a few juniors returning to join the few talented sophmores. If we where to trade we would have 2 first round picks next year, putting us in position to grab one of the QBs or trade up for one with the picks.

Im not saying which way is the better choice, but if the colts want a QB this year contrary to what Luck supporters believe it does not have to be Luck. And if the Colts dont take Luck they dont have to use a 5th to grab the QB for the future, that would be silly and i would suggest very few are actually suggesting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this year's draft, yes. But there are still guys in this draft and in others found in the later rounds who, with proper coaching and in the proper system, can be and have been successful. For example, look at Matt Schaub, Fitzpatrick, Brady (though he is a rare exception, I can't think of any other HOF QBs found that late), Hasselbeck, Cassel (who I personally don't think is a great QB, but he is alright) and many others. You may not find the next Peyton Manning or Drew Brees in the 3rd to 7th rounds, but you can still find a decent QB

I agree completely. This year's QB class is very stilted. You have Luck and RG3, and then you have the rest. If you don't draft Luck or RG3 with your #1 overall, you are relegated to the rest. And if you assume that Peyton is starting, then we have the same situation as we had last year with Painter, except with new faces and names. If (knock on wood) Peyton goes down to injury again, we will have no reason to think we won't have similar results like last year.

If we wait until next year, the situation may be worse. More than likely we will not find ourselves with the #1 through #5 overall pick, which makes it more likely that we will be back at the same strategy as before...later round QB picks. Without a #1-5 overall pick, it will either be costly or impossible to pick Barkley (my projected best in class QB next year) or Jones. We will play the same game again and wait until the year after hoping Peyton can continue to play at the expected level.

We drafted Painter as a decent QB in the 6th round in 2009. How did 2 years of Colts development work out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the history of the Colts selection of late round (beyond overall pick #160) QBs:

Only Sam Havrilak led the Colts to a SB.

1) Were any of them developed to be a starter?

2) Were any of them successful?

3) Why do some feel that we can draft a QB in later rounds and groom him to be a successor to Peyton Manning now?

I wouldn't exactly say that "Sam Havrilak led the Colts to a SB.". If memory serves he was a running back who played a minor roll. It is incredibly unlikely that any of these players were drafted with the expectation of them becoming starting QBs.

I agree that any assumption that having Peyton around will make the next QB better are mostly wishful thinking. It's not his job, it's the coaches job. If a smart QB can learn about reading defenses by listening to him, or respond to his example - that's great. But it's not going to turn a schlub into a star.

Which brings me to the more important point, which is that when people talk about drafting a QB "in the later rounds", I take that the mean any round other than the first. ANY QB not drafted in the first round (some might say the top ten) is by definition a project. Maybe you hope that one of those projects (through the third round or so) might eventually be a starter, but the sixth? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it mandatory to take a QB this year? You seems to think so but if Manning is healthy why cant we take one next year? Its already turning out to be a strong class next year, with a few juniors returning to join the few talented sophmores. If we where to trade we would have 2 first round picks next year, putting us in position to grab one of the QBs or trade up for one with the picks.

Im not saying which way is the better choice, but if the colts want a QB this year contrary to what Luck supporters believe it does not have to be Luck. And if the Colts dont take Luck they dont have to use a 5th to grab the QB for the future, that would be silly and i would suggest very few are actually suggesting that.

No, it is not mandatory to use the #1 on a QB this year. You can wait and hope that the Colts will be in a similar position next year with a #1 through #5 overall pick, and that another QB prospect that is as highly rated as Luck becomes available at the same time. Before Barkley decided to return to school next year, he was rated higher than RG3, but below Luck. So it was 1) Luck; 2) Barkley; 3) RG3. So if we do not use our current #1 on 1) Luck, we should hope that we suck enough this upcoming season to earn a #1-#5 overall pick to use on 2) Barkley? That doesn't make sense to me.

If the Colts don't pick a QB in the later rounds this year, are we then relegated to the Orlovsky/Painter/Collins scenario again? Or is the plan that Peyton will not go down again, and therefore it doesn't really matter who is on the bench?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings me to the more important point, which is that when people talk about drafting a QB "in the later rounds", I take that the mean any round other than the first. ANY QB not drafted in the first round (some might say the top ten) is by definition a project. Maybe you hope that one of those projects (through the third round or so) might eventually be a starter, but the sixth? No.

You make my point for me.

I think any QB prospect drafted beyond the first round is a project, and less likely to be a star than a 1st round QB. That is why I question those who use the argument that we can develop a later round QB to become Peyton's successful replacement as a means to support the Trade the #1 pick option.

We already have plenty of evidence within Colts recent history to show how later round QBs do not become successful starters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make my point for me.

I think any QB prospect drafted beyond the first round is a project, and less likely to be a star than a 1st round QB. That is why I question those who use the argument that we can develop a later round QB to become Peyton's successful replacement as a means to support the Trade the #1 pick option.

We already have plenty of evidence within Colts recent history to show how later round QBs do not become successful starters.

Yes, I was pretty sure that we were on the same page - your post is just a little confusing because you are asking questions about people specifically drafted after a certain point. It sounds like you are considering the possibility and looking for info, not making an argument for a different course of action. Your response to me was much more to the point.

I also haven't seen anyone talking about "late round" picks. They are typically talking about grabbing Nick Foles in the second round or some such, because they happen to think that in the long run he may be a top notch QB. I can't recall any posts about grabbing a nobody and magicaly transforming him through the power of Peyton. The sixth round gets you Sorgi and Painter, who despite "learning from Peyton" didn't become starters. I doubt that there is a single person on here interested in passing on Luck/Griffin just to repeat that experiment. The thought is just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it mandatory to take a QB this year? You seems to think so but if Manning is healthy why cant we take one next year? Its already turning out to be a strong class next year, with a few juniors returning to join the few talented sophmores. If we where to trade we would have 2 first round picks next year, putting us in position to grab one of the QBs or trade up for one with the picks.

Im not saying which way is the better choice, but if the colts want a QB this year contrary to what Luck supporters believe it does not have to be Luck. And if the Colts dont take Luck they dont have to use a 5th to grab the QB for the future, that would be silly and i would suggest very few are actually suggesting that.

We cannot move up in the draft next year to get a quarterback. The whole point of trading the 1st pick this year is to gain more players that can contribute to the team right away. It does not make sense to gain picks this year and then trade them away next year to move up in the draft to get a lower rated QB than Luck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was pretty sure that we were on the same page - your post is just a little confusing because you are asking questions about people specifically drafted after a certain point. It sounds like you are considering the possibility and looking for info, not making an argument for a different course of action. Your response to me was much more to the point.

I also haven't seen anyone talking about "late round" picks. They are typically talking about grabbing Nick Foles in the second round or some such, because they happen to think that in the long run he may be a top notch QB. I can't recall any posts about grabbing a nobody and magicaly transforming him through the power of Peyton. The sixth round gets you Sorgi and Painter, who despite "learning from Peyton" didn't become starters. I doubt that there is a single person on here interested in passing on Luck/Griffin just to repeat that experiment. The thought is just ridiculous.

Yes, I have seen some advocate to pick Foles or Osweiler or Keenum or even Moore, instead of using the #1 to pick Luck/RG3. This way, they rationalize, they can trade that #1 pick and use a later round pick (from the bounty received in lieu of the #1 overall pick) to pick up one of these QB prospects to "develop" on the bench behind Peyton who will be playing for the next 4 years. Currently, these guys are projected to go in these rounds: Foles (2nd); Osweiler (2-3rd); Keenum (7-FA); Moore (6-7th), according to today's CBS position rankings. IMO, these guys are all projects, and none have the same potential as Luck/RG3 to be a successful starter to replace Peyton.

Although none have advocated taking a QB prospect in the 6th round or later, it seems to be exactly what the Colts have done in the recent past with Sorgi and Painter. Maybe we have learned from that and now are setting our sights a little higher...to the 2nd through 4th rounds? It still avoids the point, that all QB prospects taken beyond the first round are projects and are less likely than a 1st rounder to be a successful replacements for Peyton.

Maybe I should expand my list in the original post to include all QB picks beyond the 1st round?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe another way to look at it is by looking at the historical first round QBs taken by the Colts:

1998 Peyton Manning (1st overall pick)

1990 Jeff George (1)

1983 John Elway (1)

1982 Art Schlichter (4)

1973 Bert Jones (2)

I think a higher percentage of these picks panned out than the list provided in the OP. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the middle QBs (2nd round - #160 overall)

1988 Chris Chandler 3rd round (76)

1986 Jack Trudeau 2nd round (47)

1982 Mike Pagel 4th round (84)

1976 Mike Kirkland 5th round (143)

1971 Karl Douglas 3rd round (78)

Do you see anyone on this list that you think performed up to a level (at the time they played) to be considered an adequate replacement for Peyton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the middle QBs (2nd round - #160 overall)

1988 Chris Chandler 3rd round (76)

1986 Jack Trudeau 2nd round (47)

1982 Mike Pagel 4th round (84)

1976 Mike Kirkland 5th round (143)

1971 Karl Douglas 3rd round (78)

Do you see anyone on this list that you think performed up to a level (at the time they played) to be considered an adequate replacement for Peyton?

Maybe another way to look at it is by looking at the historical first round QBs taken by the Colts:

1998 Peyton Manning (1st overall pick)

1990 Jeff George (1)

1983 John Elway (1)

1982 Art Schlichter (4)

1973 Bert Jones (2)

I think a higher percentage of these picks panned out than the list provided in the OP. What do you think?

this is why we need to take luck

But in my heart I want Peyton to stay so bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First round drafted QBs by the Colts:

1998 Peyton Manning (1st overall pick)

1990 Jeff George (1)

1983 John Elway (1)

1982 Art Schlichter (4)

1973 Bert Jones (2)

Second tier QBs drafted by the Colts (2nd round through overall pick #160)

1988 Chris Chandler 3rd round (76)

1986 Jack Trudeau 2nd round (47)

1982 Mike Pagel 4th round (84)

1976 Mike Kirkland 5th round (143)

1971 Karl Douglas 3rd round (78)

Third tier QBs drafted by the Colts (overall pick #160 upwards)

2009 Curtis Painter 6th round (201)

2004 Jim Sorgi 6th round (193)

1996 Mike Cawley 6th round (205)

1990 Gene Benhart 13th round (311)

1989 Wayne Johnson 11th round (296)

1989 Steve Taylor 12th round (323)

1983 Jim Bob Taylor 11th round (280)

1975 Steve Joachim 7th round (160)

1975 Bill Malouf 16th round (392)

1974 Bob Bobrowski 12th round (307)

1973 Tom Pierantozzi 13th round (322)

1972 Van Brownson 8th round (204)

1972 Gary Wichard 16th round (412)

1970 Gordon Slade 7th round (174)

1969 Sam Havrilak 8th round (207)

1969 Larry Good 9th round (232)

1968 Jeff Beaver 15th round (404)

Which of these 3 groups represent a higher probability of success for the Colts in acquiring a successful starting QB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Peyton is done/gone I am all for Luck. But based on this past year the 2-7th round qbs outplayed the 1st rounders(excluding Cam Newton). Andy Dalton played as well as any rookie QB in recent years and made it to playoffs. And TJ Yates made it to playoffs and won a playoff game.

I know that the odds of QB outside of the top 10 or 15 making an instant impact is low, but in last years draft more late round guys did than in the 1st. Showing it is possible.

I was hoping we would take Andy Dalton in the 2nd, but he didnt fall and we didnt trade up. Either of which I was hoping for.

If Peyton is not returing then I have to say Luck is the answer. If he does then i understand the arguments for all the POV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not mandatory to use the #1 on a QB this year. You can wait and hope that the Colts will be in a similar position next year with a #1 through #5 overall pick, and that another QB prospect that is as highly rated as Luck becomes available at the same time. Before Barkley decided to return to school next year, he was rated higher than RG3, but below Luck. So it was 1) Luck; 2) Barkley; 3) RG3. So if we do not use our current #1 on 1) Luck, we should hope that we suck enough this upcoming season to earn a #1-#5 overall pick to use on 2) Barkley? That doesn't make sense to me.

If the Colts don't pick a QB in the later rounds this year, are we then relegated to the Orlovsky/Painter/Collins scenario again? Or is the plan that Peyton will not go down again, and therefore it doesn't really matter who is on the bench?

No the plan would be to select at 32. Thats only possible with Peyton at this point. No matter who the back up. However rookie QBs tend to struggle, especially when placed on a bad team. Which would mean we could very well have a top 10 pick and top 10 2nd round pick to continue to build the team to go with the Colts picks. TJ Yates won a playoff game. Is that because he is a great QB? No. Its because the overall talent on the Texans far exceeds the talent on the Colts.

People want to say we sucked because we had no backup QB, while partially true, not entirely. We finished 2-14 this year because overall the team was bad at every position. Even with Luck he would struggle his rookie year because of that lack of talent.

Im fine with takin Luck, but the way i see it is if a team offers 3 first rounds for him or something along those lines, it would be silly not to seriously consider it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the middle QBs (2nd round - #160 overall)

1988 Chris Chandler 3rd round (76)

1986 Jack Trudeau 2nd round (47)

1982 Mike Pagel 4th round (84)

1976 Mike Kirkland 5th round (143)

1971 Karl Douglas 3rd round (78)

Do you see anyone on this list that you think performed up to a level (at the time they played) to be considered an adequate replacement for Peyton?

All these arguments show nothing. Did we have the same overall talent those years? How where our coaches? How was the talent in the rest of the division? Its kinda like me saying we shouldnt take Luck because look what happened to Jamarcus Russell. Its irrelevant because its a different player on another team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely. This year's QB class is very stilted. You have Luck and RG3, and then you have the rest. If you don't draft Luck or RG3 with your #1 overall, you are relegated to the rest. And if you assume that Peyton is starting, then we have the same situation as we had last year with Painter, except with new faces and names. If (knock on wood) Peyton goes down to injury again, we will have no reason to think we won't have similar results like last year.

If we wait until next year, the situation may be worse. More than likely we will not find ourselves with the #1 through #5 overall pick, which makes it more likely that we will be back at the same strategy as before...later round QB picks. Without a #1-5 overall pick, it will either be costly or impossible to pick Barkley (my projected best in class QB next year) or Jones. We will play the same game again and wait until the year after hoping Peyton can continue to play at the expected level.

We drafted Painter as a decent QB in the 6th round in 2009. How did 2 years of Colts development work out?

The best thing that could happen to the Colts, for long term success, is to have a bad year in 2012, getting high draft picks in every round. If they draft Luck, but Manning plays, we would likely make the playoffs and get mediocre picks. So unless you think the Colts can go to the SB next year, with a recovering Manning, we're better off getting two years of excellent draft picks and letting Luck learn in the school of hard knocks. IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Peyton is done/gone I am all for Luck. But based on this past year the 2-7th round qbs outplayed the 1st rounders(excluding Cam Newton). Andy Dalton played as well as any rookie QB in recent years and made it to playoffs. And TJ Yates made it to playoffs and won a playoff game.

I know that the odds of QB outside of the top 10 or 15 making an instant impact is low, but in last years draft more late round guys did than in the 1st. Showing it is possible.

I was hoping we would take Andy Dalton in the 2nd, but he didnt fall and we didnt trade up. Either of which I was hoping for.

If Peyton is not returing then I have to say Luck is the answer. If he does then i understand the arguments for all the POV.

Last year is only one draft, and you included examples of other NFL teams, which are not the Colts.

The Colts history shows that we have been unsuccessful drafting and developing QBs when we draft them in the later rounds. This can mean either (or both) of 2 things;

1) The Colts do not have what it takes to develop late round QB picks to become successful starters, and/or

2) The late round QB picks the Colts chose do not have the talent to become successful starters.

In either case, doesn't this show that it would be better for the Colts to pick a QB in the first round if they intend for him to become a successful starter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the plan would be to select at 32. Thats only possible with Peyton at this point. No matter who the back up. However rookie QBs tend to struggle, especially when placed on a bad team. Which would mean we could very well have a top 10 pick and top 10 2nd round pick to continue to build the team to go with the Colts picks. TJ Yates won a playoff game. Is that because he is a great QB? No. Its because the overall talent on the Texans far exceeds the talent on the Colts.

People want to say we sucked because we had no backup QB, while partially true, not entirely. We finished 2-14 this year because overall the team was bad at every position. Even with Luck he would struggle his rookie year because of that lack of talent.

Im fine with takin Luck, but the way i see it is if a team offers 3 first rounds for him or something along those lines, it would be silly not to seriously consider it.

I think it is a stretch to think that the Colts can win a SB this upcoming season with Peyton.

If you think a rookie QB takes time to adjust to the NFL, isn't that true in any case for any rookie at any position?

Given the new HC, and staff, assuming a new O and a new D, don't you think even the current vets on the team will need time to adjust to the new schemes?

If Peyton is back, how much $$$ (real and cap) do we have to spend on FAs, who would not need as much time as rookies to adjust?

Given your answers to the above questions, do you still think the Colts will be winning the SB this upcoming season, to pick at #32 next year?

Now, what if Peyton goes down to injury in the upcoming season? With the "it doesn't matter who is on the bench" backup plan, I think we know what will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a stretch to think that the Colts can win a SB this upcoming season with Peyton.

If you think a rookie QB takes time to adjust to the NFL, isn't that true in any case for any rookie at any position?

Given the new HC, and staff, assuming a new O and a new D, don't you think even the current vets on the team will need time to adjust to the new schemes?

If Peyton is back, how much $$$ (real and cap) do we have to spend on FAs, who would not need as much time as rookies to adjust?

Given your answers to the above questions, do you still think the Colts will be winning the SB this upcoming season, to pick at #32 next year?

Now, what if Peyton goes down to injury in the upcoming season? With the "it doesn't matter who is on the bench" backup plan, I think we know what will happen.

Not saying its likely, just saying the only way its possible is with Manning at the helm. Period.

What if this and what if. What if Luck tears his ACL in camp and we released Manning. Then what? Its pointless to base actions on "what ifs"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying its likely, just saying the only way its possible is with Manning at the helm. Period.

What if this and what if. What if Luck tears his ACL in camp and we released Manning. Then what? Its pointless to base actions on "what ifs"

I think it is unlikely that the Colts will be in a position to win the SB this upcoming season, particularly when the owner has said that the team is "rebuilding".

Yes. "what ifs" are speculation. However, we know from very recent experience what happens when Peyton cannot play, and we have a bench of backup QBs of questionable ability. Result = 2-14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is unlikely that the Colts will be in a position to win the SB this upcoming season, particularly when the owner has said that the team is "rebuilding".

Yes. "what ifs" are speculation. However, we know from very recent experience what happens when Peyton cannot play, and we have a bench of backup QBs of questionable ability. Result = 2-14.

We also know what a talented Defense and run game can do for a below average QB. And we also know what happens when we take an excellent QB (possibly best ever) and surround him with mediocrity. If we had a top 15 defense and run game do you think we would be 2-14? Even with the QBs we had? Personally im fine with Danny O as a backup for a year if we can get a 1000 yard rusher and a top 10-15 defense, hopefully he wouldnt see the field.

Would we be in a rebuilding mode had Manning not gotten injured? My guess would be no. Manning back means the offense is back to top 5. A successful defense on top of that puts us back into SB contenders.

Remember there where a few positives this year. One of which was the Colts run game averaged over 4 ypc which would be extremely helpful to Manning, who would actually take advantage unlike the coaches who insisted on Painter playing Manning ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also know what a talented Defense and run game can do for a below average QB. And we also know what happens when we take an excellent QB (possibly best ever) and surround him with mediocrity. If we had a top 15 defense and run game do you think we would be 2-14? Even with the QBs we had? Personally im fine with Danny O as a backup for a year if we can get a 1000 yard rusher and a top 10-15 defense, hopefully he wouldnt see the field.

Would we be in a rebuilding mode had Manning not gotten injured? My guess would be no. Manning back means the offense is back to top 5. A successful defense on top of that puts us back into SB contenders.

Remember there where a few positives this year. One of which was the Colts run game averaged over 4 ypc which would be extremely helpful to Manning, who would actually take advantage unlike the coaches who insisted on Painter playing Manning ball.

What is the likelihood that the Colts will sign FAs and draft to suddenly become a top 10 defense in one off-season?

What is the likelihood that the Colts will get a 1000 yd rusher this upcoming season given the state of the OL?

If we use the available $$$ and the picks to address the defense to become a top 10 defense, how much is left to address the OL to help produce a 1000 yd rusher?

If we pay Peyton the bonus in March, how much $$$ does that take away from signing FAs to address either the defense or the OL?

I agree with what you are hinting at...the need for a balanced team (offense/defense); and the need for a balanced offense (pass/run); to be successful.

What we have learned this past season, is that the Colts are vulnerable when they build a team that is eccentric to Peyton, especially when Peyton goes down.

Whether Peyton plays in the upcoming season or not, I think we should rebuild the team away from being eccentric to Peyton, to achieve the desired balance (o/d, run/pass).

We should also upgrade the back up QB situation, whether or not Peyton returns.

We should also address the need to find and develop a QB of the future to replace Peyton, since Peyton is not getting any younger, and it is not known if he is healthy enough to play, or if he can play to the same expected level prior to the surgeries.

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Don't forget this Sunday's game on Fox 59 at 7:30 pm I think!
    • Im sorry I’m responding a little late….   But I took the time to re-view the 25 minute Luck press conference, and the 25 minute conference from Irsay, Ballard and Reich.    Luck says his final decision was made roughly 10-14 days before the announcement, and the execs say they knew 7-10 days ahead and the week leading up to the game was filled with almost daily conversations.  I don’t know where you got that the front office found out “that day.”    I’ve never seen that claim made by anyone else here, and there’s been plenty of mis-information put out there about Luck.    Also….  Luck didn’t participate in any team activities the entire off-season.   Zero in the Spring.   Zero in training camp.  At the presser Ballard talked about the strange off-season saying Luck ended the 2018 season feeling pretty good, then something happened at the Pro Bowl that no one could pin down.  Ankle sprain?   High ankle sprain? Shin?    No one knew.   So the team knew something was up.     Ultimately, Luck did a bad job at his press conference explaining things, and the media did a poor job of getting enough details to write a good story so people could understand.    But I’d add, that no one in the Colts seems angry with Luck.   Not Irsay, or Ballard, or Reich, or players.   No one.    Yet people here think Luck screwed the team.   A guy driven to do the right thing all his life, and yet fans here are convinced he did the wrong thing.   I confess that disappoints me.   It’s as if people never learned anything about Andrew Luck beyond his wins and losses.  I find that sad….  
    • Like most surface fans? Not sure what kind of shot ur trying to take here but okay. As for the points, there aren't really any intelligble ones to respond to. In both instances Wentz gives the ball to the other team at the very end of the game. In both TEN matchups. Also, in those specific plays there were checkdowns available.    Reich kind of took blame for one, saying he shouldn't of called a TE screen so close to the end zone. But I guess i'm just a surface fan, even though I consistently talk on a colts fan forum, frequent multiple other sites where many people post a plethora of uncensored opinions about the colts, attend games frequently, and I understand football more than most casual people.    I don't sit on the board and pretend to speak some scheme specific terminology, but I know what football looks like. And with that being said, it is easy for anyone to see that Wentz consistently put our defense in bad positions, and tried to play hero ball despite not being very good at it.  As for how that applies to this specific thread; I think having a more sensible QB on the roster will make our Oline look a lot better.    Also, as i've stated multiple times, I do recognize our offensive line had issues. However, that doesn't takeaway the reality of 2sprainz and the type of game he wanted to play, even at the cost of his own team. 
    • She can talk some smack on analytics. Smarter than most of the hot take reporters / personalities out there. And she's super hot.  Highly doubt it happens, but we have a lot of things that could realistically fall our way. 
  • Members

    • CR91

      CR91 9,683

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Robert Johnson

      Robert Johnson 101

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Narcosys

      Narcosys 587

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...