Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts Looking to Develop Chad Kelly


Rebel

Recommended Posts

Now if Bridgewater  didn't want to stay a Saint, I'd like to have him.   There aren't going to be many good FA QB's out there next year.  Rivers and Dak aren't going anywhere. Pass on Winston, Tannehill and Mariotta.   

I think Brees may retire so Teddy would stay a Saint.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 438
  • Created
  • Last Reply
38 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

The idea of bringing in someone to help the team is not "frowned up(on) here".

 

You're suggestions of who the Colts should bring in are usually "frowned up(on) here" because your suggestions are usually bad and do not make sense.

 

Like this one for example, Cam Newton has been a mediocre, at best, QB since the SB loss.  Bringing him in would be a bad move because he would not help the team and may actually set the team back.

Cam has regularly played behind an awful O-Line. Cam playing behind a better O-line and a gameplan that is less dependent on him running, would produce better numbers. People on here talking bout developing Chad Kelly but Cam is an awful take? Please. Even considering his “poor play” but if JB continues his pace will throw for less yards and maybe the same amount of TDs Cam thru last year, with a lower completion percentage.

 

Anybody not drafted by Chris Ballard or not signing for 2yrs and 10,000 doesn’t make sense to the majority here. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Myles said:

Now if Bridgewater  didn't want to stay a Saint, I'd like to have him.   There aren't going to be many good FA QB's out there next year.  Rivers and Dak aren't going anywhere. Pass on Winston, Tannehill and Mariotta.   

I think Brees may retire so Teddy would stay a Saint.  

I'd rather have him over cam lol I love Teddy 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Myles said:

Now if Bridgewater  didn't want to stay a Saint, I'd like to have him.   There aren't going to be many good FA QB's out there next year.  Rivers and Dak aren't going anywhere. Pass on Winston, Tannehill and Mariotta.   

I think Brees may retire so Teddy would stay a Saint.  


I’d rather draft a QB or continue go with Brissett, over Bridgewater.  I think both are fairly identical, game managers, not franchise caliber QB’s. Teddy’s a little overrated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I'd rather have him over cam lol I love Teddy 

Prior to New Orleans nobody was checking for Teddy B. There isnt enough there to say he can carry a team over the course of a season. Saints are loaded on O and D. Payton is an amazing coach. I’d be cautious on Teddy as a franchise QB

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Cam has regularly played behind an awful O-Line. Cam playing behind a better O-line and a gameplan that is less dependent on him running, would produce better numbers. People on here talking bout developing Chad Kelly but Cam is an awful take? Please. Even considering his “poor play” but if JB continues his pace will throw for less yards and maybe the same amount of TDs Cam thru last year, with a lower completion percentage.

 

Anybody not drafted by Chris Ballard or not signing for 2yrs and 10,000 doesn’t make sense to the majority here. 

 

Thanks for making my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Cam has regularly played behind an awful O-Line. Cam playing behind a better O-line and a gameplan that is less dependent on him running, would produce better numbers. People on here talking bout developing Chad Kelly but Cam is an awful take? Please. Even considering his “poor play” but if JB continues his pace will throw for less yards and maybe the same amount of TDs Cam thru last year, with a lower completion percentage.

 

Anybody not drafted by Chris Ballard or not signing for 2yrs and 10,000 doesn’t make sense to the majority here. 

 

At least for me 

    Who drafted him means nothing 

 

Cam appears to be on the downhill portion of his ride

Link to post
Share on other sites

    I might be wrong but he just looks like he has potential to be ready good. 
    I guess there are some options at QB going forward and the bottom line to me is; I trust Ballard and Reich to get their QB of the future. Whether there is someone on the team now or in the draft/FA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

But if a QB is really considered 'good' no team would pass on adding them because it is the most important position on the roster.

 

I'd actually argue the opposite when it come to behavioral issues. QBs are held to a higher standard, and should be. You can take a chance on a very talented bad behaving DL, DB, WR, RB, etc. and move on with a lot more ease should it not work out (Pats this year, and 100 other examples). Teams are far more conservative about behavior when it comes to a QB. Coaches and GMs will "hang on" far more to mediocre or bad QBs because they are "good guys" as well. There are certainly teams that are more, or less risk averse, but overall QB is whole different animal when it comes to behavior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all fun talk, but in reality I think Brissett is the starter the rest of this year and next.

He hasn't been great, but he's been good.  The Colts may draft a prospect or may get Kelly more work.   Right now it looks like in 2020 it'll be Brissett starting and Hoyer as the back up, just like this season.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

not sure but you cant risk playing a recently injured QB with only one backup 

I agree but that's the big question. If you're gonna carry 3 QBs, you're gonna have to make a cut somewhere

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Myles said:

This is all fun talk, but in reality I think Brissett is the starter the rest of this year and next.

He hasn't been great, but he's been good.  The Colts may draft a prospect or may get Kelly more work.   Right now it looks like in 2020 it'll be Brissett starting and Hoyer as the back up, just like this season.  

Thankfully it is Friday and JB looks fairly healthy. When the Colts lose it makes for a miserable long week. Sunday can't get here fast enough lmao . We get this win vs Miami and JB gets to 100%, everything will be good again :thmup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Thankfully it is Friday and JB looks fairly healthy. When the Colts lose it makes for a miserable long week. Sunday can't get here fast enough lmao . We get this win vs Miami and JB gets to 100%, everything will be good again :thmup:

I more focused on the Sectional Championship Princeton Community is hosting tonight

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MPStack said:


I’d be fine with it, until TY and or Funchess get back. Basically the Miami game would be it. 

Not me.   If one WR went down, we'd be down to 2.   With Hilton and Funchess coming back soon, I say this is Cain's last chance to prove himself.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 11:43 PM, CoachSmok3 said:

JB has SOME

CK has NONE

Yes, and the same was true of Tom Brady when he was a backup to Drew Bledsoe. And of Aaron Rodgers when he was a backup to Brett Farvre. I'm not saying CK is the next Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers--just making a point that every QB who's ever gone on to be good, or even great, initially lacked regular season experience. Personally, I'd rather roll the dice on a QB with a high upside and let the chips fall where they may, than to start a QB with a 10-year track record of being just "OK".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, masterlock said:

Yes, and the same was true of Tom Brady when he was a backup to Drew Bledsoe. And of Aaron Rodgers when he was a backup to Brett Farvre. I'm not saying CK is the next Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers--just making a point that every QB who's ever gone on to be good, or even great, initially lacked regular season experience. Personally, I'd rather roll the dice on a QB with a high upside and let the chips fall where they may, than to start a QB with a 10-year track record of being just "OK".

You are wrong

  AR was drafted to be the replacement for BF

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

You are wrong

  AR was drafted to be the replacement for BF

Yes, there's a bit more to it. They didn't expect to get him, and they actually waited the entire 15 minutes to put their pick in waiting for a team to call them to trade up to take Rogers. Keep in mind Rogers fell 20+ spots with no teams taking a QB. It was a pretty weak QB class (thought at the time). He was a bit of a wildcard. He certainly wasn't drafted to come in and take the job right away.

 

I think the point @masterlock is making, is he wasn't a sure thing, and probably not expected to be as good as he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Yes, there's a bit more to it. They didn't expect to get him, and they actually waited the entire 15 minutes to put their pick in waiting for a team to call them to trade up to take Rogers. Keep in mind Rogers fell 20+ spots with no teams taking a QB. It was a pretty weak QB class (thought at the time). He was a bit of a wildcard. He certainly wasn't drafted to come in and take the job right away.

 

I think the point @masterlock is making, is he wasn't a sure thing, and probably not expected to be as good as he is.

The problem with using him is he was a 1st Round Pick and the heir apparent to the starter 

     The better comparison would be Kirk Cousins or Gus Frerotte

         Guys who were “luxury” picks who went in to be serviceable starters

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The problem with using him is he was a 1st Round Pick and the heir apparent to the starter 

     The better comparison would be Kirk Cousins or Gus Frerotte

         Guys who were “luxury” picks who went in to be serviceable starters

He could have used JB, but that's probably too soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, masterlock said:

Yes, and the same was true of Tom Brady when he was a backup to Drew Bledsoe. And of Aaron Rodgers when he was a backup to Brett Farvre. I'm not saying CK is the next Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers--just making a point that every QB who's ever gone on to be good, or even great, initially lacked regular season experience. Personally, I'd rather roll the dice on a QB with a high upside and let the chips fall where they may, than to start a QB with a 10-year track record of being just "OK".

You don’t do that with a 5-3 team that is in the heart of a divisional race when the starter is only going to be out for a short time if you can help it.  Brady was forced in because the Pats didn’t have another option.  Rogers situation isn’t Kelly’s, he was drafted to one day be the guy in Green Bay.  The Colts would be happy if Kelly turns out to be a serviceable backup.  

 

Also, while the Pats hit on Tom Brady there are a heck of a lot more teams that faced a similar situation and it failed miserably like the Colts did with Painter.  Brady is by far the exception and not the rule.  

 

The Colts are going to play the guy they feel gives them the best chance to win.  They aren’t just shooting from the hip on this either, they know way more about Hoyer and Kelly than anyone here does.  They have studied this and to this point they didn’t even feel like Kelly was ready to be on a NFL roster let alone a starter.  So like it or not based on their knowledge of the situation they feel Hoyer gives them a better chance to win right now than Kelly does.

 

If this team was 2-6 and Brissett was lost for the year things might be different and they might throw Kelly in just to see what they have.  However they aren’t.  They are fighting for a playoff spot where every game is important to them.  They are without their starter for a short period of time.  This is the exact scenario Hoyer was brought here for.  So that’s who they are going to go with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

You don’t do that with a 5-3 team that is in the heart of a divisional race when the starter is only going to be out for a short time if you can help it.  Brady was forced in because the Pats didn’t have another option.  Rogers situation isn’t Kelly’s, he was drafted to one day be the guy in Green Bay.  The Colts would be happy if Kelly turns out to be a serviceable backup.  

 

Also, while the Pats hit on Tom Brady there are a heck of a lot more teams that faced a similar situation and it failed miserably like the Colts did with Painter.  Brady is by far the exception and not the rule.  

 

The Colts are going to play the guy they feel gives them the best chance to win.  They aren’t just shooting from the hip on this either, they know way more about Hoyer and Kelly than anyone here does.  They have studied this and to this point they didn’t even feel like Kelly was ready to be on a NFL roster let alone a starter.  So like it or not based on their knowledge of the situation they feel Hoyer gives them a better chance to win right now than Kelly does.

 

If this team was 2-6 and Brissett was lost for the year things might be different and they might throw Kelly in just to see what they have.  However they aren’t.  They are fighting for a playoff spot where every game is important to them.  They are without their starter for a short period of time.  This is the exact scenario Hoyer was brought here for.  So that’s who they are going to go with.

The Pats just did it with Danny Eitling

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...