Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts Draft A QB In The First Round?


King Colt

Recommended Posts

To all those that say we should draft a running back (Barkley) with our first pick which is absurd I offer this. Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold have declared themselves for the draft so lets go for one of them. I prefer Darnold. It makes more sense than ignoring the Colts glaring needs and there are many to draft an RB. What if Luck is never again 100%? We have Gore and Mack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have Gore, would have to re-sign him.  We won't know if Luck is 100% until he actually plays, so I feel we need to address the needs we have in FA and the draft.  With an improved OL, Brissett can be our QB if Luck isn't available.

 

Wouldn't want to use our #3 on a QB if we don't end up needing one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, King Colt said:

To all those that say we should draft a running back (Barkley) with our first pick which is absurd I offer this. Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold have declared themselves for the draft so lets go for one of them. I prefer Darnold. It makes more sense than ignoring the Colts glaring needs and there are many to draft an RB. What if Luck is never again 100%? We have Gore and Mack.

 

What if Luck turns out to be healthy?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, King Colt said:

To all those that say we should draft a running back (Barkley) with our first pick which is absurd I offer this. Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold have declared themselves for the draft so lets go for one of them. I prefer Darnold. It makes more sense than ignoring the Colts glaring needs and there are many to draft an RB. What if Luck is never again 100%? We have Gore and Mack.

If we go with McDaniel he might be very comfortable rolling with JB if Luck cant come back he knows the offense and played well in it . Worst case it doesn't go well and we pick high in the draft again and can bring in more grade A talent .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, King Colt said:

To all those that say we should draft a running back (Barkley) with our first pick which is absurd I offer this. Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold have declared themselves for the draft so lets go for one of them. I prefer Darnold. It makes more sense than ignoring the Colts glaring needs and there are many to draft an RB. What if Luck is never again 100%? We have Gore and Mack.

If you truly believe Andrew will return healthy, what kind of message are you sending to him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand the reservations about Luck based on what happened this season but I don't see drafting a QB as the answer.  I would also say that he was throwing balls 50 yards not long ago so hopefully it is just about getting the shoulder rehabbed to get the soreness away.

 

If you are so against a RB in the first round then why would we not use our pick to get Chubb?  The effect players like Miller, Watt, etc have had on their teams is immeasurable, its a major position of need and, if we couple that with Luck being back then we would be in a great position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, King Colt said:

To all those that say we should draft a running back (Barkley) with our first pick which is absurd I offer this. Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold have declared themselves for the draft so lets go for one of them. I prefer Darnold. It makes more sense than ignoring the Colts glaring needs and there are many to draft an RB. What if Luck is never again 100%? We have Gore and Mack.

 

9 out of 10 mock drafts predict them as 1/1 and 1/2. Plus, the odds that Luck will never be 100% again are quite low. So too much if's to worth a speculation.

 

Btw, if Luck is indeed done, then the Colts will have another down season no matter what. So they will have a top pick in 2019. Maybe not 1/3, but a top10. Then, they can move up and grab their QB next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those who are saying that Luck was injured, so we should assume he will never play well again, I say this--Didn't you learn your lesson with Peyton Manning ?! Manning got hurt and was out for a season. Management promptly traded him to Denver, assuming he could never play 100% again. Peyton promptly won Denver Superbowl !  

 

I say we should go on the assumption that Luck is returning in good shape. If it does not occur we still have Brissett who was progressing nicely for a green rookie . Meanwhile lets use that draft pick to help out the offense  which will help whether we are playing with Luck or Brissett .+ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

9 out of 10 mock drafts predict them as 1/1 and 1/2. Plus, the odds that Luck will never be 100% again are quite low. So too much if's to worth a speculation.

 

Btw, if Luck is indeed done, then the Colts will have another down season no matter what. So they will have a top pick in 2019. Maybe not 1/3, but a top10. Then, they can move up and grab their QB next year.

Not to mention Ballard has made the comment that trading for Brissett was a trade for the future.

What that is we just don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, King Colt said:

You got it Drafting Barkley as some here advocate would make sense only to trade him for a bucket of talent. Same with top QB.

? If the Colts do draft Barkley they are not trading him.

If someone wanted him they would trade the pick before drafting Barkley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I think he's saying that drafting a QB is just as stupid as drafting a RB at 1.

Exactly, List the Colts needs in order of degree. Is there biggest problem (s) running backs or quarterbacks or are they OL linebackers or a defense that ranks at or near the bottom. Is Ballard going to put Luck in behind the incompetent OL that has been sorry for years? If Irsay and Ballard don't get the coming year right it is going to be another very long and sorry season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ride it out with Luck this fall, unless something bad changes in his prognosis by draft time and they don't expect him to be healthy again.

 

If he doesn't play next season, they will likely be back picking top 5 again and at that point I'd go QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, King Colt said:

Exactly, List the Colts needs in order of degree. Is there biggest problem (s) running backs or quarterbacks or are they OL linebackers or a defense that ranks at or near the bottom. Is Ballard going to put Luck in behind the incompetent OL that has been sorry for years? If Irsay and Ballard don't get the coming year right it is going to be another very long and sorry season. 

It’s so wierd too. Remember the year before they didn’t allow a sack in back to back games against the Vikings then Raiders? They’re just so inconsistent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, DaveA1102 said:

I can understand the reservations about Luck based on what happened this season but I don't see drafting a QB as the answer.  I would also say that he was throwing balls 50 yards not long ago so hopefully it is just about getting the shoulder rehabbed to get the soreness away.

 

If you are so against a RB in the first round then why would we not use our pick to get Chubb?  The effect players like Miller, Watt, etc have had on their teams is immeasurable, its a major position of need and, if we couple that with Luck being back then we would be in a great position.

 

I agree I think that while there are some warranted concerns about Luck's health a lot of it is overdone.  

 

His injury has a far better prognosis then the injury that sidelined Manning in 2011.  Plus Luck was launching the ball with velocity, we all saw the tape of it.  He just started getting some pain and swelling in the shoulder afterwards.  Manning on the other hand was just barely starting to throw at the end of the season.  

 

It's over the top to say we should draft a QB in the first round.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, King Colt said:

What if he does not? Another losing season?

 

Shockingly you the point eluded you.

 

You seem to be advocating taking a QB regardless.  The point is they will have a really good idea long before the draft if Luck will be good to go for 2018.  If that is the case, drafting a QB pretty much makes no sense, which is why I asked the question.

 

2 hours ago, King Colt said:

You got it Drafting Barkley as some here advocate would make sense only to trade him for a bucket of talent. Same with top QB.

 

That is not the way it works in the NFL.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

9 out of 10 mock drafts predict them as 1/1 and 1/2. Plus, the odds that Luck will never be 100% again are quite low. So too much if's to worth a speculation.

 

Btw, if Luck is indeed done, then the Colts will have another down season no matter what. So they will have a top pick in 2019. Maybe not 1/3, but a top10. Then, they can move up and grab their QB next year.

 

I have no idea why you think the odds of Luck never being healthy again are quite low?   

 

I'd peg Luck's health status at 50/50...

 

You'te not alone...   lots of people here agree with you...   I just don't know why?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, King Colt said:

To all those that say we should draft a running back (Barkley) with our first pick which is absurd I offer this. Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold have declared themselves for the draft so lets go for one of them. I prefer Darnold. It makes more sense than ignoring the Colts glaring needs and there are many to draft an RB. What if Luck is never again 100%? We have Gore and Mack.

We have a QB luck will be back and be fine we need to fix the team around him that's the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, King Colt said:

To all those that say we should draft a running back (Barkley) with our first pick which is absurd I offer this. Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold have declared themselves for the draft so lets go for one of them. I prefer Darnold. It makes more sense than ignoring the Colts glaring needs and there are many to draft an RB. What if Luck is never again 100%? We have Gore and Mack.

Darnold looked like crap against Ohio State.   I wouldn't draft him in the top 10.   Especially on a team with a bad O-line.  

 

Darnold threw an interception that was returned for a touchdown , lost two fumbles on sacks and misfired on several other throws in No. 8 Southern California's 24-7 loss to fifth-ranked Ohio State on Friday night.  With the two lost fumbles, he's tied for the FBS lead with 22 turnovers.

 
Edited by Nadine
extra html breaking the page
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thorolf said:

To those who are saying that Luck was injured, so we should assume he will never play well again, I say this--Didn't you learn your lesson with Peyton Manning ?! Manning got hurt and was out for a season. Management promptly traded him to Denver, assuming he could never play 100% again. Peyton promptly won Denver Superbowl !  

 

I say we should go on the assumption that Luck is returning in good shape. If it does not occur we still have Brissett who was progressing nicely for a green rookie . Meanwhile lets use that draft pick to help out the offense  which will help whether we are playing with Luck or Brissett .+ 

Not true.  Defense took Manning along for the ride.  Osweiller would have been just as effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Roger said:

Osweiler could have easily gotten to 56.6 QB rating in that Super Bowl.

 

 

I've seen plenty of playoff performances where Peyton's arm wasn't falling off and he played worse. That was actually a pretty good effort for him at that point. He made a couple of good plays early and was the steady hand. The team didn't have a mental breakdown because the QB was ... Brock Osweiler.

Brock wouldn't have won that game in my estimation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I predict all of the players listed as questionable will play.  The Steelers offense is meh.
    • The problem with hiring a defensive guy and tasking him with building that offensive support system is that most of them just don’t have it, and they’re not really capable of building it. There aren’t enough Tom Moore types out there to help institute that long-term knowledgeable stability.    We got lucky with Pagano and Luck having Arians in the building, and largely being the head coach for the majority of Luck’s rookie season. But watching Pagano flail to fill an offensive staff post-Arians was painful, and most of the defensive head coaches struggle in the exact same way. It’s out of their specialty and out of their comfort zone and it just makes it harder than it needs to be on everyone involved.    The most advantageous way to hire a defensive HC is with an already established QB and system that he can just come in and not have to build from the ground up. 
    • You should double check. I just did. Womack started both games, with Jaylon Johnson on the other side, and Kenny Moore at nickel.    Against the Packers, Womack got 20 snaps, Flowers got 19. Against the Bears, Womack got 28 snaps, Flowers got 41 (and he left before the game ended, so maybe he would have gotten more). Maybe Flowers was on his way to taking Womack's spot in the lineup, but Womack was on the field as a starter in both games.
    • Game on the line, inconsistent passer at QB, and the OL is the strength of the team. Everyone in the world knew that the first priority was to stop JT. And they couldn't.    I don't know what's with this myth that there's something deficient about JT as a RB. It's nonsense.
    • I think he's probably only using 25% of his playbook so far, for various reasons. Some of that is intentional, as they work in some concepts with a young QB and a young-ish supporting cast.   Another part of it is that the Colts game script has been heavily skewed, especially in the first two games, so the gameplan had to be reduced as the game went along. The offense couldn't stay on the field, and the defense couldn't get off of it. It was better against the Bears, but their offense still ran 30 more plays than ours. Total, our offense has run 87 fewer plays than our opponents. Teams usually script their first 15 offensive plays, and I wonder if the Colts have gotten through that opening script in any of the first three games. So I think there are some things that they'd like to have run, but so far they have not been able to get to them.   I don't think it's a binary 'do we call winning plays, or do we call plays to develop the QB' consideration. I don't necessarily agree that those priorities have to compete with one another, but it does require a balance to do them both justice. I don't think it does this team any good, short term or long term, to restrict Richardson to 15 passing attempts/game, or to use him as an option QB like this is the Navy team, even if they felt like that could be a way to win some games. I also don't think they should coach him as if every game is "winner take all," and have him lay his body on the line or try to drop back 50 times a game.    And we have to blame Richardson and the WRs to a certain extent. There have been a lot of missed throws, drops, and turnovers. Those plays have stalled or ended several possessions, and that's not on the play calling.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...