QB Conundrum

[CanuckColt 919]

We fans should not all be "settling for" Brissett as our QB of the future and hoping he improves. We need to be holding Ballard's feet to the fire and demanding that he does something dramatic in acquiring a high pick (the highest pick even).  Ransom the future 1's...do whatever is necessary to draft a real "franchise" QB. We are not going to the AFC championship game and never going to the Superbowl with Brissett, so why waste the fans' time and the players' careers? Get your assetts in gear, Ballard, and forget about accumulating the most low level picks that you can.

We do not feel like being "one and done" at best for the next 5 years or more.

 

[Nickster 328]

I do not hate Jacoby Brisett.  I don’t think he’s keeper material.  He’ll get his chance the rest of the year to show it.  He’s not young.  He’s not inexperienced.  There are a plethora of stats indicating he is a below average NFL starter and only a few that indicate otherwise. He has a good TD/INT ratio, but with most of the other measurables he is unimpressive.

 

Good heavens Hoyer was so awful.  His first INT should have been a TD.  Doesn’t count.  2nd was similar to last weeks into coverage.  The 3rd and many other throws was a what the Sam Hill you looking at throw.

JB will have his chance, but I am afraid we’ve seen the best of Colt football this year already.

 

I’d be shocked if we don’t go for a QB next season.  The team was set up around a great QB who quit.  It’s going to be tough.

[2006Coltsbestever 25,057]

1 minute ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Just seems a strong word to use, and it's painted across the fence of anyone who dares have a discussion about the QB play this year. Appreciate your previous post, but there's posters on both sides of the fence who are equally as bad as each other. 

Just asking but how is saying someone sucks just to be saying it or calling them a putz having a creative discussion? To me that is trolling and being a hater, JMO.

[SteelCityColt 8,236]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Just asking but how is saying someone sucks just to be saying it or calling them a putz having a creative discussion? To me that is trolling and being a hater, JMO.

 

I don't disagree with it not being part of having a civilised discussion. But hater is a strong word to use, same as using the word bully for challenging the content of a post. Semantics maybe. 

 

Let's put it another way, it's one thing to have a back and forth like we have over JB, it's another to not engage in conversation and post calling out type material, of referring to all those you criticise JB as "haters". 

[2006Coltsbestever 25,057]

7 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I don't disagree with it not being part of having a civilised discussion. But hater is a strong word to use, same as using the word bully for challenging the content of a post. Semantics maybe. 

 

Let's put it another way, it's one thing to have a back and forth like we have over JB, it's another to not engage in conversation and post calling out type material, of referring to all those you criticise JB as "haters". 

There is a difference in being critical/critiquing someone and just saying someone sucks/name calling. There is nothing wrong with people being critical of JB.

[SteelCityColt 8,236]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

There is a difference in being critical/critiquing someone and just saying someone sucks/name calling. There is nothing wrong with people being critical of JB.

 

Fully agree, same as there's a difference between having a constructive back and forth and resorting to ad hominems. Like I said, it plays on both sides on the fence. 

 

Not meant a as a criticism of yourself of course, appreciate how you roll. 

 

[esmort 1,705]

33 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

There is a difference in being critical/critiquing someone and just saying someone sucks/name calling. There is nothing wrong with people being critical of JB.

 

I think some people are being more critical than maybe they typically would  because they fear that he will be "just good enough" and the Colts will be stuck with a Alex Smith or even a Dak Prescott situation. 

 

Most people would rather rip the band-aid off now and be terrible for a couple years than be stuck at mediocre for a decade.

[CanuckColtsFan 646]

2 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Disagree Steelers would have caught on to that lets throw short all the time nonsense too even with him and Dolphins would have done the same with him cause he doesn't scare anyone either.

Okay. I say 5 an 2 record and wins against tough teams say otherwise.  It's reallly tough to predict but I just dont see us losing those games with a QB who has proven he can win in the NFL this year. Hoyer is a known turover machine. Plus he does nothing in the pocket. Brisset has familiarity with the team and his O line. I just dont see with how, our D has been playing, that a turnover averse JB loses. 

[hoosierhawk 661]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It depends, I only use it when it is necessary. If someone says JB will never be a franchise QB, he sucks, and as the above poster just did calls him a putz than yeah they are haters. How do they know JB will 'never' be a franchise QB, that is not even an opinion, that is just bagging on the guy. Calling someone names is trolling and bagging on the guy as well.

2006, I think I could find a post by you that said you weren't sure he was a franchise QB. Does that make you an almost 'hater'? Don't like the name calling either. Guy says Hoyer is throwing out puck and doesn't have a clue but yet he is the calling out 'haters'. Does his comments constitute being a 'hater'? I said Hoyer had a terrible game yesterday. Does that constitute a 'hater' comment?

[Thunderbolt 194]

Reich, I believe is not a very good coach.  He got out coached by a rookie head coach on a bad team.  A team that we should have won easily.  Hoyer, realizing is a back QB, but he was terrible at the initial phase of the game.  Any coach would have change QB in the 2nd half, realizing the back up QB(Hoyer) was handing out football candies to the opposing team...This was a frustrating lost.

[2006Coltsbestever 25,057]

29 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

2006, I think I could find a post by you that said you weren't sure he was a franchise QB. Does that make you an almost 'hater'? Don't like the name calling either. Guy says Hoyer is throwing out puck and doesn't have a clue but yet he is the calling out 'haters'. Does his comments constitute being a 'hater'? I said Hoyer had a terrible game yesterday. Does that constitute a 'hater' comment?

Having your doubts about a QB being a franchise QB is far different than saying he 'never' will be. Saying a QB had a lousy game when he does isn't being a hater either. It is just telling the truth. I have even said JB has played bad at times. Name calling and using words like 'never' is just hate material to me. It also brings zero value to any discussion that 2 people can reasonably have that disagree on a subject. If someone gets on here and calls JB a putz and says he sucks or says he will 'never' be a franchise QB, why waste time even responding to them?

[CoachSmok3 147]

3 hours ago, CanuckColt said:

Jacoby is a putz who follows Reich's orders to throw short crossing routes, dumpoffs, screens and handoffs.  I could train my dog to do that.

 

 

Lol, I like you

 

Your dog is impressive. Mine ate a pack of suckers while I was at work...

[CoachSmok3 147]

3 hours ago, CanuckColt said:

We fans should not all be "settling for" Brissett as our QB of the future and hoping he improves. We need to be holding Ballard's feet to the fire and demanding that he does something dramatic in acquiring a high pick (the highest pick even).  Ransom the future 1's...do whatever is necessary to draft a real "franchise" QB. We are not going to the AFC championship game and never going to the Superbowl with Brissett, so why waste the fans' time and the players' careers? Get your assetts in gear, Ballard, and forget about accumulating the most low level picks that you can.

We do not feel like being "one and done" at best for the next 5 years or more.

 

 

Bwahahahahahaha... Yo, I didn't even make it past the first 4 sentences...

 

That stuff had me rolling! Lol

 

I told you I liked you...

 

Yaharabblerabblerabblerabbletookourjobsrabblerabblr!!! Ballard's a witch, he turned me into a newt!

[Coffeedrinker 7,322]

13 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

The Colts reached the 16 yard line , they kick extra points from the 15. I think you should have said "the Colts could have ATTEMPTED the game tying FG. Poor AV.... who would have figured this ? 

 

 

That would have been better stated.

[aaron11 2,518]

they should draft someone to be the starter.

[Mitch Connors 288]

14 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Which is the real question?

 

Kelly was on the practice squad until Saturday. Anyone projecting him to be anything more than a future backup on this team is shooting too high. He has some talent, but was drafted at the end of the 7th round, he was a free agent until we signed him in May, then he made it through waivers in September. All offseason, he was competing with Phillip Walker for QB3, and we know Walker isn't anything special.  

 

What changed is that Luck retired. Otherwise, we wouldn't have signed Hoyer, Kelly probably would have been stuck on the practice squad just like he was anyway, and we'd be talking about the QB position a lot less this season.

 

Everyone knows Hoyer isn't a franchise QB. That's why he was available in September. He's a backup. We signed him in case JB got hurt. Maybe if Kelly wasn't suspended for the first two weeks they plug Kelly in at QB2, but I doubt that. As it is, we gave Hoyer a nice backup QB contract and a clipboard, and crossed our fingers that he wouldn't have to take any meaningful snaps. Then JB got hurt last week, and now we know firsthand what kind of QB Brian Hoyer is. 

 

After this season ends, the staff will have serious questions to answer about the QB position. Hoyer and Kelly are like, 4th and 5th on that list, IMO. 

 

If you really want to ask why we didn't start Chad Kelly, you should just ask. 

 

You missed the point, i think, because I wasn't clear.

This has nothing to do with Chad Kelly playing, its about Hoyer and the roster. 

 

If Hoyer is the plan for a long term backup why is Chad Kelly on this team? I understand last week with injuries but why the other 8 weeks? In this scenario Kelly will never play so cut him for another roster spot. 

 

If Hoyer is here for a year (assume Kelly is the backup after) why would you even have Hoyer at all? The Colts would be saying Hoyer will be here 1 year even though we know Kelly is better which is why hes the future backup. In order to say that you'd have to know Kelly is better now. If Kelly is better than why bring in Hoyer?

 

If this was a stopgap for weeks 1-2 why not keep Walker and then waive him week 3? I cant make sense of what the Colts are trying to do here.

[Colts_Fan12 5,555]

18 hours ago, hoosierhawk said:

Smoke, what constitutes a JB 'hater'. That's a pretty strong word. I haven't seen what I would call a JB 'hater' on this sight. If it is someone who critiqued his play then I fall in that category and I take exception to that. I happen to like JB but I would like to see improvement and have voiced my concern but I certainly don't 'hate' him.

Hoyer had a decent game last week and a terrible game yesterday, worst than any game JB has had this year. I am critical of Hoyer's play but I certainly don't 'hate' him either. 

I honestly dont hate JB I think hes a good guy and a top backup QB. just cause you dont see him as our future QB doesn't mean you hate him. honestly I dislike the JB cheerleaders more than JB himself lol 

[Myles 2,945]

13 hours ago, Thunderbolt said:

Reich, I believe is not a very good coach.  He got out coached by a rookie head coach on a bad team.  A team that we should have won easily.  Hoyer, realizing is a back QB, but he was terrible at the initial phase of the game.  Any coach would have change QB in the 2nd half, realizing the back up QB(Hoyer) was handing out football candies to the opposing team...This was a frustrating lost.

In hindsight maybe.  I don't think any good coach, in a close game, would put a QB in that hasn't taken a snap in the NFL yet.  

[jameszeigler834 1,655]

13 hours ago, CanuckColtsFan said:

Okay. I say 5 an 2 record and wins against tough teams say otherwise.  It's reallly tough to predict but I just dont see us losing those games with a QB who has proven he can win in the NFL this year. Hoyer is a known turover machine. Plus he does nothing in the pocket. Brisset has familiarity with the team and his O line. I just dont see with how, our D has been playing, that a turnover averse JB loses. 

What im saying is steelers defense the last month and a half has been producing turnovers at an almost record pace even if we started the game with that short crap working they would have adjusted and it would have caused turnovers.

[Superman 36,106]

1 hour ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

You missed the point, i think, because I wasn't clear.

This has nothing to do with Chad Kelly playing, its about Hoyer and the roster. 

 

If Hoyer is the plan for a long term backup why is Chad Kelly on this team? I understand last week with injuries but why the other 8 weeks? In this scenario Kelly will never play so cut him for another roster spot. 

 

If Hoyer is here for a year (assume Kelly is the backup after) why would you even have Hoyer at all? The Colts would be saying Hoyer will be here 1 year even though we know Kelly is better which is why hes the future backup. In order to say that you'd have to know Kelly is better now. If Kelly is better than why bring in Hoyer?

 

If this was a stopgap for weeks 1-2 why not keep Walker and then waive him week 3? I cant make sense of what the Colts are trying to do here.

 

Hoyer was signed on September 2. He's not part of any long term plan, he was an emergency signing after Luck retired. 

 

Kelly wasn't on the active roster until JB got hurt. He was signed late in free agency, then didn't get claimed when he was on waivers, then signed back to the practice squad, where he stayed until we needed to promote him (no word on whether anyone tried to grab him). It's not like he's a proven commodity, or even a coveted prospect. How do we know he's better than Hoyer? Especially prior to the Miami game (and no one should have expected him to be special, but he was especially awful against Miami). That's an assumption that I don't understand and don't agree with. We don't know what Kelly is.

 

Also, are you forgetting that Kelly was suspended the first two weeks? If he was available, maybe they don't sign Hoyer, and Kelly is the backup. That would have been a questionable decision, IMO, based on Kelly's background. 

 

But as it stood, they had to sign someone, and they wanted a veteran who could pick up the playbook quickly, in case he had to step in. Enter Hoyer. The fact that they gave Hoyer a strong contract is kind of an indication that they weren't ready for Kelly to be QB2 anyways; otherwise, maybe they sign a less expensive backup who keeps the seat warm for two weeks. 

 

And Walker? I was always surprised he was even still on the roster. He's not good. He was probably a good teammate and a good scout team guy, but not a good QB. If Walker was JB's backup in the first two weeks, and had to play, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. Hoyer > Walker, and everyone knew that. Kelly > Walker, and they didn't make him QB2. Walker is where he belongs at this point -- out of the NFL.

 

I just find this to be a weird question. Hoyer was signed because Luck retired, and even if Kelly hadn't been suspended the first two weeks, making him QB2 would have been risky. 

 

All the Colts were trying to do is have a capable backup QB. As it stands, Hoyer has been a mixed bag, but let's acknowledge that he's been thrown in the game with backup receivers, running an offense that's been struggling for a few weeks to find its identity.

 

If you were asking why the Colts don't give Kelly a shot moving forward, that's a different story, but it seems like there's an assumption that Kelly is necessarily better than Hoyer, and I'm not sure I agree with that assumption. Given the circumstances, it's unknown whether Kelly would have performed any better than Hoyer did last week. 

[Myles 2,945]

13 hours ago, CanuckColtsFan said:

Okay. I say 5 an 2 record and wins against tough teams say otherwise.  It's reallly tough to predict but I just dont see us losing those games with a QB who has proven he can win in the NFL this year. Hoyer is a known turover machine. Plus he does nothing in the pocket. Brisset has familiarity with the team and his O line. I just dont see with how, our D has been playing, that a turnover averse JB loses. 

I agree with your post except the bolded part.   Hoyer has 52 TD's and 34 INT's for his career (67 games).  

[Superman 36,106]

53 minutes ago, Myles said:

In hindsight maybe.  I don't think any good coach, in a close game, would put a QB in that hasn't taken a snap in the NFL yet.  

 

Agreed. Maybe if we were down two touchdowns, you make a switch. In a close game, where some of Hoyer's issues had been circumstantial to that point, you don't pull the plug on him, and you definitely don't throw CK out there.

[Myles 2,945]

I wonder how Hoyer would be viewed if that INT was a TD.   That was on Enron.  I think the Colts win that game if he holds on to the ball.

[CoachSmok3 147]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed. Maybe if we were down two touchdowns, you make a switch. In a close game, where some of Hoyer's issues had been circumstantial to that point, you don't pull the plug on him, and you definitely don't throw CK out there.

 

 

Im out of reactions today... at 1030am, this sucks lol... so I quoted you to show agreement. Pulling Hoyer mid-game last week would have been terrible management.

 

I am not a fan of Kelly, but even I wouldnt want to see Kelly, with no reps, just called off PS, no game plan, no chemistry with others on the field, in a losing game, just tossed to the fire...

 

Some of the people that are proposing that have not at all considered the situation. they just want to see their Swagolishious Leader standing on the field. it would have been like throwing a baby in the pool and telling it to swim...

[Mitch Connors 288]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Hoyer was signed on September 2. He's not part of any long term plan, he was an emergency signing after Luck retired. 

 

Kelly wasn't on the active roster until JB got hurt. He was signed late in free agency, then didn't get claimed when he was on waivers, then signed back to the practice squad, where he stayed until we needed to promote him (no word on whether anyone tried to grab him). It's not like he's a proven commodity, or even a coveted prospect. How do we know he's better than Hoyer? Especially prior to the Miami game (and no one should have expected him to be special, but he was especially awful against Miami). That's an assumption that I don't understand and don't agree with. We don't know what Kelly is.

 

Also, are you forgetting that Kelly was suspended the first two weeks? If he was available, maybe they don't sign Hoyer, and Kelly is the backup. That would have been a questionable decision, IMO, based on Kelly's background. 

 

But as it stood, they had to sign someone, and they wanted a veteran who could pick up the playbook quickly, in case he had to step in. Enter Hoyer. The fact that they gave Hoyer a strong contract is kind of an indication that they weren't ready for Kelly to be QB2 anyways; otherwise, maybe they sign a less expensive backup who keeps the seat warm for two weeks. 

 

And Walker? I was always surprised he was even still on the roster. He's not good. He was probably a good teammate and a good scout team guy, but not a good QB. If Walker was JB's backup in the first two weeks, and had to play, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. Hoyer > Walker, and everyone knew that. Kelly > Walker, and they didn't make him QB2. Walker is where he belongs at this point -- out of the NFL.

 

I just find this to be a weird question. Hoyer was signed because Luck retired, and even if Kelly hadn't been suspended the first two weeks, making him QB2 would have been risky. 

 

All the Colts were trying to do is have a capable backup QB. As it stands, Hoyer has been a mixed bag, but let's acknowledge that he's been thrown in the game with backup receivers, running an offense that's been struggling for a few weeks to find its identity.

 

If you were asking why the Colts don't give Kelly a shot moving forward, that's a different story, but it seems like there's an assumption that Kelly is necessarily better than Hoyer, and I'm not sure I agree with that assumption. Given the circumstances, it's unknown whether Kelly would have performed any better than Hoyer did last week. 

My gosh...I almost always agree with you but this one has me scratching my head. You're arguing against points I'm not making. Did you read my posts or assume Im in the start Kelly camp?

 

Is Hoyer better than Kelly right now? You dont know that and neither does anyone else but lets say yes. WHY IS KELLY ON THE TEAM THEN? We dont need 3 QBs for 9 weeks (barring last week) when this team is riddled with injuries.

 

Is Kelly better than Hoyer right now? You dont know that and neither does anyone else but lets say yes. WHY IS HOYER ON THE TEAM THEN? We dont need 3 QBs for 9 weeks (barring last week) when this team is riddled with injuries.

 

Im of the mind that since nobody here knows the answer to those 2 questions get rid of Hoyer and fill that spot with DT, WR, OL that may contribute in the future. We know what Hoyer is and its not good enough (ask every teams hes played on).

 

As far as roster building goes, how many teams carry 3 QB's even on the practice squad? Less than half and the bulk of those are, like the Colts, due to injuries. This is a team that doesnt have the luxury of carrying 3 QBs.

[Superman 36,106]

1 hour ago, Mitch Connors said:

WHY IS KELLY ON THE TEAM THEN? We dont need 3 QBs for 9 weeks (barring last week) when this team is riddled with injuries.

 

We haven't had three QBs on the team. Why is this a question? Kelly was activated Saturday because JB couldn't go. Before that, he was on the PS.

 

Quote

Is Kelly better than Hoyer right now? You dont know that and neither does anyone else but lets say yes.

 

Why are we saying yes? Based on what? There's no reasonable way to reach that conclusion at this point.

 

Quote

WHY IS HOYER ON THE TEAM THEN?

 

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious, and I went over all that in the previous post. Again, I don't understand why this is a question. 

 

Quote

We dont need 3 QBs for 9 weeks (barring last week) when this team is riddled with injuries.

 

See above, we haven't had three QBs on the team. You know that, right? Before JB was ruled out for the Miami game, we've had only two QBs on the active roster. Unless you wanted to go into the game with just one active QB, what did you expect them to do?

 

Quote

Im of the mind that since nobody here knows the answer to those 2 questions get rid of Hoyer and fill that spot with DT, WR, OL that may contribute in the future. We know what Hoyer is and its not good enough (ask every teams hes played on).

 

I don't necessarily agree with this estimation of Hoyer, but I'm certainly not banging the table in favor of him being anything other than a backup. But he's a 34 year old journeyman that we signed in September. Did anyone actually think he was going to rescue a team with three of our our best receivers injured?

 

Do you think Kelly would play better? If so, I don't understand why you're not just making the case for Kelly being better than Hoyer, rather than pretending that the present circumstances don't exist, circumstances that led to Hoyer being signed and us temporarily having three QBs on the active roster (namely, Luck retiring, and JB getting hurt). 

 

And that's a legitimate discussion, but I don't think we can get to a place where anyone actually thinks Kelly would be better overall than Hoyer is, especially with the current circumstances. 

 

Quote

As far as roster building goes, how many teams carry 3 QB's even on the practice squad? Less than half and the bulk of those are, like the Colts, due to injuries. This is a team that doesnt have the luxury of carrying 3 QBs.

 

Let's put this part of the argument to bed right now.

 

Teams with 2 active + 1 PS: Rams, Broncos (now just two, Flacco was IR'd and Rypien was promoted), Texans, Bucs, Falcons, Packers, Bears, Vikings, Browns, Jets, Bills, Dolphins, Cowboys

 

Teams with 3 active: Niners, Chiefs (+1, because of Mahomes injury), Chargers, Raiders, Jaguars (Foles injury), Saints, Panthers (until last week when Cam was IR'd), Lions (even before Stafford was hurt), Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Patriots, Giants, Eagles (+1), Redskins

 

That's 13 teams with two active QBs plus one on the PS, and 15 teams with three active QBs. So 28 out of 32 teams carry more than two QBs, including the PS. 

 

And yes, a lot of this is circumstantial, due to injury, a questionable QB situation, or a combination of the two. But that's exactly the Colts situation! The QB room was thrown into chaos when Luck retired, and then we settled it out with a common composition (two active, one on PS), and only when JB got hurt did we activate a third QB (which is also a common QB room composition).

 

I see this the exact opposite of you. We don't have the luxury of NOT having three QBs, especially with JB hurt last week. And since I don't think he has a two week injury and he'll probably be less than 100% moving forward, I expect them to keep three QBs active the rest of the season. 

 

Quote

My gosh...I almost always agree with you but this one has me scratching my head. You're arguing against points I'm not making. Did you read my posts or assume Im in the start Kelly camp?

 

I didn't assume you're in the start Kelly camp. But like I said to begin with, I don't understand what you're asking. 

 

Hoyer's on the roster because Luck retired. Kelly's on the roster because they want to see if he'll be anything, and he was promoted to the active roster because JB got hurt. It's like you're making this QB situation a thing when it's pretty simple.

 

I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic, I just feel like you're dancing around a point that you're not really ready to make, and I can't figure out what it is. But it's not hard to understand why our QB room is the way it is right now. It's a pretty straight line.

[CanuckColtsFan 646]

4 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

What im saying is steelers defense the last month and a half has been producing turnovers at an almost record pace even if we started the game with that short crap working they would have adjusted and it would have caused turnovers.

They beat the Rams, so Pitt is working with something. 

[Rally5 639]

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Hoyer was signed on September 2. He's not part of any long term plan, he was an emergency signing after Luck retired. 

 

Kelly wasn't on the active roster until JB got hurt. He was signed late in free agency, then didn't get claimed when he was on waivers, then signed back to the practice squad, where he stayed until we needed to promote him (no word on whether anyone tried to grab him). It's not like he's a proven commodity, or even a coveted prospect. How do we know he's better than Hoyer? Especially prior to the Miami game (and no one should have expected him to be special, but he was especially awful against Miami). That's an assumption that I don't understand and don't agree with. We don't know what Kelly is.

 

Also, are you forgetting that Kelly was suspended the first two weeks? If he was available, maybe they don't sign Hoyer, and Kelly is the backup. That would have been a questionable decision, IMO, based on Kelly's background. 

 

But as it stood, they had to sign someone, and they wanted a veteran who could pick up the playbook quickly, in case he had to step in. Enter Hoyer. The fact that they gave Hoyer a strong contract is kind of an indication that they weren't ready for Kelly to be QB2 anyways; otherwise, maybe they sign a less expensive backup who keeps the seat warm for two weeks. 

 

And Walker? I was always surprised he was even still on the roster. He's not good. He was probably a good teammate and a good scout team guy, but not a good QB. If Walker was JB's backup in the first two weeks, and had to play, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. Hoyer > Walker, and everyone knew that. Kelly > Walker, and they didn't make him QB2. Walker is where he belongs at this point -- out of the NFL.

 

I just find this to be a weird question. Hoyer was signed because Luck retired, and even if Kelly hadn't been suspended the first two weeks, making him QB2 would have been risky. 

 

All the Colts were trying to do is have a capable backup QB. As it stands, Hoyer has been a mixed bag, but let's acknowledge that he's been thrown in the game with backup receivers, running an offense that's been struggling for a few weeks to find its identity.

 

If you were asking why the Colts don't give Kelly a shot moving forward, that's a different story, but it seems like there's an assumption that Kelly is necessarily better than Hoyer, and I'm not sure I agree with that assumption. Given the circumstances, it's unknown whether Kelly would have performed any better than Hoyer did last week. 

Here's where I think Kelly 'fans' are distressed. To your point we don't know Kelly...fair.  So what do we know.  We know he can run, dude's fast.  We know he has a strong arm, like that.  We know he'll throw downfield and into tight windows, good!  We know he will stand in the pocket, check. We know he has the stuff to go into Alabama with an Ole Miss team and beat em, that no small thing. We also know he has off-field issues maybe he's grown up, don't know but we hear good things from Frank.  So to someone like me, I like what I see and like what I hear...Rally confused.

 

Here's what we know about Hoyer, he has none of those physical attributes but he's good in the QB room.  Ok, well, I'm good in QB room but you wouldn't want me under center.  There's an obvious hesitation here on the part of Frank and/or Chris to make Kelly a part of the permanent roster, they will likely cut him again and hope he clears waivers over Hoyer, that to me is absolutely stunning.  Either, Kelly is an off the field nightmare we shouldn't be investing in OR he should be at worst QB2. Hoyer is simply not good, we can get his level of performance literally anywhere, he's the prototypical failed backup and those are readily available on the cheap. I wouldn't understand keeping him over a contract when he weakens the team relative to someone like Kelly on game day.  So to a previous posters comment, why is Kelly here?  If he is such an integrity issue it's not our job to make a man out of him while he occupies a spot.  If he's is good enough physically, which he is, and he's on this roster, which he is, he should stay up and get some first team reps, as all back ups should and see how matures.  It starting to feel like some ego at play here.  All in all, our leadership was ill-prepared to deal with Brissett going down and choked this week in prep.  It's my hope we dump Hoyer who is useless and keep Kelly at QB2, I don't think that will happen.  My 2+ cents.

[Superman 36,106]

7 hours ago, Rally5 said:

Here's where I think Kelly 'fans' are distressed. To your point we don't know Kelly...fair.  So what do we know.  We know he can run, dude's fast.  We know he has a strong arm, like that.  We know he'll throw downfield and into tight windows, good!  We know he will stand in the pocket, check. We know he has the stuff to go into Alabama with an Ole Miss team and beat em, that no small thing. We also know he has off-field issues maybe he's grown up, don't know but we hear good things from Frank.  So to someone like me, I like what I see and like what I hear...Rally confused.

 

Here's what we know about Hoyer, he has none of those physical attributes but he's good in the QB room.  Ok, well, I'm good in QB room but you wouldn't want me under center.  There's an obvious hesitation here on the part of Frank and/or Chris to make Kelly a part of the permanent roster, they will likely cut him again and hope he clears waivers over Hoyer, that to me is absolutely stunning.  Either, Kelly is an off the field nightmare we shouldn't be investing in OR he should be at worst QB2. Hoyer is simply not good, we can get his level of performance literally anywhere, he's the prototypical failed backup and those are readily available on the cheap. I wouldn't understand keeping him over a contract when he weakens the team relative to someone like Kelly on game day.  So to a previous posters comment, why is Kelly here?  If he is such an integrity issue it's not our job to make a man out of him while he occupies a spot.  If he's is good enough physically, which he is, and he's on this roster, which he is, he should stay up and get some first team reps, as all back ups should and see how matures.  It starting to feel like some ego at play here.  All in all, our leadership was ill-prepared to deal with Brissett going down and choked this week in prep.  It's my hope we dump Hoyer who is useless and keep Kelly at QB2, I don't think that will happen.  My 2+ cents.

 

Are there true "Kelly fans"? Or did you put that in semi-quotes because it's a euphemism for something else?

 

I disagree with some of your characterizations of Kelly and Hoyer, but what I really disagree with is your characterization of the situation and the calculus of the staff. And I guess part of that goes back to your evaluation of Kelly.

 

Just think about his situation. We know he has physical tools, he had some good performances in college, and he hasn't been in trouble recently. Yet, he was the last player picked in his draft class, the Broncos didn't keep him despite having a terrible QB situation, he sat on the market until May, played well in preseason, but still cleared waivers in mid-September despite several teams having bad QB situations (Steelers, Jaguars, Washington, Eagles, Panthers, just a sample of teams that had early season QB injuries), then signed back to our practice squad. And he sat on our practice squad for two months without being plucked away (and yes, we're paying him active roster money, but another team could match that and give him a three week automatic spot on the active roster).

 

Now, you and other "Kelly fans" might think highly of his prospects, but you at least have to admit that he's not highly coveted by the rest of the NFL. It's entirely possible that the only reason he's even on an NFL team is because of his connection with Frank Reich. Other teams might feel like he's a talented project who needs to develop, but they might not have been convinced that he would put in the work and stay out of trouble. Reich felt like he could check both of those boxes, but that doesn't mean Kelly isn't still a project. That's my read on the reason Kelly was signed, cleared waivers, and stuck on our practice squad. I could be wrong, but I'm just connecting the dots. 

 

If that's close to accurate, it doesn't really matter whether he's more talented than Hoyer. (There's another free agent QB who is way more talented and proven than Hoyer, and his initials are also "CK," but there are other reasons he's not on an NFL roster. Whether it's right or wrong, roster decisions don't just come down to talent, especially with QBs.) This is not a simple black/white evaluation of whether he's stable enough to be on the roster, in which case he should play over Hoyer, or if not, he shouldn't be on the roster at all. That's a gross oversimplification.

 

To the bolded, I especially disagree with that. I assume that Kelly stays on the active roster the rest of the season, barring a significant series of events that makes his roster spot absolutely critical. I don't think JB will be 100% for the rest of the season, so I think they'll carry three QBs as long as they can. I could be wrong.

 

And as it relates to Hoyer, I think these recent evaluations of him are overly harsh. I'm not and never have been excited about him as a QB, but he's done what a typical backup QB does throughout his career. He's not going to carry your team to victory, but he can run the offense. He's had a bunch of turnovers the last two games, but that's not typical of him. Before the Miami game, he hadn't had a multiple INT game in his last 21 starts, going back to 2014. He's a 60% passer who had a .500 record prior to a bunch of starts for a dreadful Niners team in 2017.

 

I'm thinking the reason he looked so bad against Miami is that our receivers were hurt, the OL didn't play well, and he made a couple bad decisions. (I also think Frank Reich left two thirds of his playbook in Kansas City, but that's a topic for another thread.) I don't think he's useless, I think he's a reasonable backup that was thrown out there in a terrible situation, and I don't think he got the help he needed from the rest of the offense. You say Hoyer weakens the team relative to Kelly, but that's heavily based on your bullish projection of Kelly. It's certainly not based on anything Kelly has done in the NFL.

 

Perhaps Kelly would have played better, but make a realistic assessment of the situation, and think about whether it would have been ideal to put him out there under those circumstances for his first real NFL game. 

 

Hoyer vs Kelly isn't really a compelling argument for me. Right now, I'd rather have Hoyer play, but I think Kelly has way more upside. Overall, I hope JB is ready to go for the rest of the season (and I hope he starts giving his receivers more chances to make plays down the field), because he's better than both of them right now. If that's the case, we're arguing about which backup QB dresses but doesn't play on Sundays. Again, not compelling, IMO.

[Rally5 639]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Are there true "Kelly fans"? Or did you put that in semi-quotes because it's a euphemism for something else?

 

I disagree with some of your characterizations of Kelly and Hoyer, but what I really disagree with is your characterization of the situation and the calculus of the staff. And I guess part of that goes back to your evaluation of Kelly.

 

Just think about his situation. We know he has physical tools, he had some good performances in college, and he hasn't been in trouble recently. Yet, he was the last player picked in his draft class, the Broncos didn't keep him despite having a terrible QB situation, he sat on the market until May, played well in preseason, but still cleared waivers in mid-September despite several teams having bad QB situations (Steelers, Jaguars, Washington, Eagles, Panthers, just a sample of teams that had early season QB injuries), then signed back to our practice squad. And he sat on our practice squad for two months without being plucked away (and yes, we're paying him active roster money, but another team could match that and give him a three week automatic spot on the active roster).

 

Now, you and other "Kelly fans" might think highly of his prospects, but you at least have to admit that he's not highly coveted by the rest of the NFL. It's entirely possible that the only reason he's even on an NFL team is because of his connection with Frank Reich. Other teams might feel like he's a talented project who needs to develop, but they might not have been convinced that he would put in the work and stay out of trouble. Reich felt like he could check both of those boxes, but that doesn't mean Kelly isn't still a project. That's my read on the reason Kelly was signed, cleared waivers, and stuck on our practice squad. I could be wrong, but I'm just connecting the dots. 

 

If that's close to accurate, it doesn't really matter whether he's more talented than Hoyer. (There's another free agent QB who is way more talented and proven than Hoyer, and his initials are also "CK," but there are other reasons he's not on an NFL roster. Whether it's right or wrong, roster decisions don't just come down to talent, especially with QBs.) This is not a simple black/white evaluation of whether he's stable enough to be on the roster, in which case he should play over Hoyer, or if not, he shouldn't be on the roster at all. That's a gross oversimplification.

 

To the bolded, I especially disagree with that. I assume that Kelly stays on the active roster the rest of the season, barring a significant series of events that makes his roster spot absolutely critical. I don't think JB will be 100% for the rest of the season, so I think they'll carry three QBs as long as they can. I could be wrong.

 

And as it relates to Hoyer, I think these recent evaluations of him are overly harsh. I'm not and never have been excited about him as a QB, but he's done what a typical backup QB does throughout his career. He's not going to carry your team to victory, but he can run the offense. He's had a bunch of turnovers the last two games, but that's not typical of him. Before the Miami game, he hadn't had a multiple INT game in his last 21 starts, going back to 2014. He's a 60% passer who had a .500 record prior to a bunch of starts for a dreadful Niners team in 2017.

 

I'm thinking the reason he looked so bad against Miami is that our receivers were hurt, the OL didn't play well, and he made a couple bad decisions. (I also think Frank Reich left two thirds of his playbook in Kansas City, but that's a topic for another thread.) I don't think he's useless, I think he's a reasonable backup that was thrown out there in a terrible situation, and I don't think he got the help he needed from the rest of the offense. You say Hoyer weakens the team relative to Kelly, but that's heavily based on your bullish projection of Kelly. It's certainly not based on anything Kelly has done in the NFL.

 

Perhaps Kelly would have played better, but make a realistic assessment of the situation, and think about whether it would have been ideal to put him out there under those circumstances for his first real NFL game. 

 

Hoyer vs Kelly isn't really a compelling argument for me. Right now, I'd rather have Hoyer play, but I think Kelly has way more upside. Overall, I hope JB is ready to go for the rest of the season (and I hope he starts giving his receivers more chances to make plays down the field), because he's better than both of them right now. If that's the case, we're arguing about which backup QB dresses but doesn't play on Sundays. Again, not compelling, IMO.

I'm not sure we actually disagree on much here.  I do think it should be noted Kelly was put on waivers on a Wednesday, that's a savvy and notable move because not only would another team have to pick him up and cut someone but likely not keep three QB's, as a result their backup wouldn't know the offense. So I disagree with the assessment that he was passed on because he wasn't good, that's false and a very savvy move in the way Indy did it.  As for Hoyer, he just another guy, I see no need to invest in a dead end and he's not better than Kelly, that's easy, he was a two game fail safe.  Ultimately we overpaid for a bad insurance policy, no problem, also no need to keep that policy.  I'm not in the camp where I think Kelly is better than Brissett but I do think he's a heck of a prospect.  Just watch his tape, you're good at that, kid can play.  I've said that from day one and won;t back off his physical skills...they are there.  Now, as for the rest, I can't begin to know the truth of that.  Otherwise, on the Jacksonville!!!  

[Superman 36,106]

1 hour ago, Rally5 said:

I'm not sure we actually disagree on much here.  I do think it should be noted Kelly was put on waivers on a Wednesday, that's a savvy and notable move because not only would another team have to pick him up and cut someone but likely not keep three QB's, as a result their backup wouldn't know the offense. So I disagree with the assessment that he was passed on because he wasn't good, that's false and a very savvy move in the way Indy did it.  As for Hoyer, he just another guy, I see no need to invest in a dead end and he's not better than Kelly, that's easy, he was a two game fail safe.  Ultimately we overpaid for a bad insurance policy, no problem, also no need to keep that policy.  I'm not in the camp where I think Kelly is better than Brissett but I do think he's a heck of a prospect.  Just watch his tape, you're good at that, kid can play.  I've said that from day one and won;t back off his physical skills...they are there.  Now, as for the rest, I can't begin to know the truth of that.  Otherwise, on the Jacksonville!!!  

 

It's not like a team claiming Kelly would have been trying to put him on the field right away. If he were this tool-sy prospect that should be a no-brainer upgrade over  Brian "Why is he here?" Hoyer, being waived on Wednesday wouldn't prevent a team from claiming him. Teams claim Wednesday waivers all the time.

 

But that's still a small part of the picture. The Broncos waived him in October 2018. No one claimed him. He was a free agent until May, no one signed him. He had a good preseason with the Colts, still cleared waivers.

 

And don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that since no one claimed him, it means he's no good. I'm just saying maybe this insistence that he's absolutely better than Hoyer isn't based in reality. And that's primarily because he's never played a real NFL game, so how could we possibly know? Because he had some highs in college?

 

Hoyer is just another guy. I don't know that Kelly is better. And most 34 year old journeyman QBs are JAGs; like I said earlier, anyone expecting Hoyer to rescue us wasn't being realistic. Like Kelly, he was a free agent for a reason as well (but he had other suitors for sure, no indication Kelly was wanted by anyone as far as I know). But again, we should acknowledge that he had almost no one to throw to, and the OL decided to play their worst game of the year, and Reich is trending conservative with his gameplans lately. 

 

I don't know that we overpaid for Hoyer, either. He got typical veteran backup money.

 

Back to Kelly for a minute. He does have physical tools, and I do like him as a prospect. But I wouldn't have started him last week, and I wouldn't have pulled the plug on Hoyer either. If JB were out for a few more weeks, maybe you could get me there if Hoyer plays another awful game, but not just yet.

 

On to Jacksonville, indeed. For some reason, we're favored by a FG in this one, in JAX. Weird.

[Rally5 639]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

It's not like a team claiming Kelly would have been trying to put him on the field right away. If he were this tool-sy prospect that should be a no-brainer upgrade over  Brian "Why is he here?" Hoyer, being waived on Wednesday wouldn't prevent a team from claiming him. Teams claim Wednesday waivers all the time.

 

But that's still a small part of the picture. The Broncos waived him in October 2018. No one claimed him. He was a free agent until May, no one signed him. He had a good preseason with the Colts, still cleared waivers.

 

And don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that since no one claimed him, it means he's no good. I'm just saying maybe this insistence that he's absolutely better than Hoyer isn't based in reality. And that's primarily because he's never played a real NFL game, so how could we possibly know? Because he had some highs in college?

 

Hoyer is just another guy. I don't know that Kelly is better. And most 34 year old journeyman QBs are JAGs; like I said earlier, anyone expecting Hoyer to rescue us wasn't being realistic. Like Kelly, he was a free agent for a reason as well (but he had other suitors for sure, no indication Kelly was wanted by anyone as far as I know). But again, we should acknowledge that he had almost no one to throw to, and the OL decided to play their worst game of the year, and Reich is trending conservative with his gameplans lately. 

 

I don't know that we overpaid for Hoyer, either. He got typical veteran backup money.

 

Back to Kelly for a minute. He does have physical tools, and I do like him as a prospect. But I wouldn't have started him last week, and I wouldn't have pulled the plug on Hoyer either. If JB were out for a few more weeks, maybe you could get me there if Hoyer plays another awful game, but not just yet.

 

On to Jacksonville, indeed. For some reason, we're favored by a FG in this one, in JAX. Weird.

We're better than Jax when healthy, we should rebound well this week. 

 

Also, for the record, I wasn't arguing we should have started Kelly this week in this circumstance.  I think my argument would be Kelly should have been QB2 since week three and would have been ready to play.  I find in all quite curious really but let me not belabor the point.

 

Quick point, with practice squad QB's, typically teams don't snipe QB's from the PS.  It's not a formal rule rather an unwritten one. Next if you grab a PS QB on a Wednesday you have to cut a player to make room for him on the 53.  That means either you carry a third QB (which teams won't do) or you cut your QB2.  Teams won't cut a QB2 to bring in a guy Thursday who doesn't have a locker let alone know the offense. So QB pick ups are much more intricate than say defensive linemen.  I suspect there's much more to his story than we know, which leaves us (me) to speculate which is ultimately unproductive I know...

 

As always, thanks for the banter!  Go Blue!

[2006Coltsbestever 25,057]

On 11/10/2019 at 7:58 PM, Scott Pennock said:

We have seen what the offense looks like when there is zero threat of a deep ball with Hoyer under center. Every short and intermediate route is closely covered. This in turn makes it harder for the oline to block and we've seen the sack numbers spike as well as the running game dwindle.

 

If Hoyer is going to throw 2-3 interceptions a game then I'd say it's time to let Chad Kelly get under center.

 

He's got the arm to throw the deep ball, he's elusive in the pocket and can run pretty well. Could he throw 2-3 picks a game, sure, but at least he may give the offense some live without Brissett in there. He certainly couldn't do much worse in my opinion.

 

And Vinny's misses are killing us....that is a whole different topic there though.

Luckily Brissett is back and is playing  this Sunday vs Jacks. So there is no conundrum. All Brissett does is usually win going by this season, so glad to have the best QB on the team back. Hoyer threw as many INT's against Miami than Brissett has in 8 games, no wonder we lost to a stinky team .

[Imgrandojji 1,070]

On 11/11/2019 at 7:23 PM, CanuckColt said:

We fans should not all be "settling for" Brissett as our QB of the future and hoping he improves. We need to be holding Ballard's feet to the fire and demanding that he does something dramatic in acquiring a high pick (the highest pick even). 

that's exactly what we should not be doing.

 

have you ever heard the phrase "perfect is the enemy of good?"  Well until the perfect quarterback comes around I'm perfectly satisfied with the good one we already have.   And I really think that squandering the draft assets to chase an ephemeral perfect Qb will hamstring us in other areas.

 

The microscope some of you guys hold Brissett under is abolutely ridiculous, expecting him to do things that maybe 4 QB in the entire league are actually capable of or you dismiss him as "average" or "a career backup."  It's honestly pathetic at this point.

 

Exactly 0 of the QBs that won Superbowls in the last 15 years were guys drafted to be the perfect QB.  15 of those 15 teams had a QB with flaws -- even Manning had his share of flaws by the time he won one, with his age mounting and his health starting to deteriorate.

 

We wasted a lot of time in the Manning era chasing Superbowls with a QB heavy team and living in denial about how bad certain areas of the team were, especially on D, because Manning bailed it out.  Cost us over and over again against the Patriots until 06 when we finally managed to eke one out against them.

 

Then we draft Luck and repeat those same mistakes until we break Luck down and wear him out trying to cover for all the flaws we refuse to admit are there until he retires.

 

There IS a reason our internet nickname is "the Glue Factory."  We are not kind to our horses at times, and overoptimistically expect too much of key producers while providing too little support.  And our solution to any problem, especially at QB, is to throw it away and draft another one.  The whole league is bad about this but we're among the worst.

 

Just once I'd like to see the fans of this franchise admit that there's more to winning football games than having a QB and that the solution to all team problems is not to throw the QB into the woodchipper and draft another one. 

 

It's infuriating to be the fan of the second worst team in the league when it comes to this attitude (second only to the Jets) and watch it unfold in realtime again and again.  And they DON'T learn, and they will NEVER learn unless they're called out, and probably not even then.

[SteelCityColt 8,236]

6 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

The microscope some of you guys hold Brissett under is abolutely ridiculous, expecting him to do things that maybe 4 QB in the entire league are actually capable of or you dismiss him as "average" or "a career backup."  It's honestly pathetic at this point.

 

So having  a football discussion about a QB on a football forum is... pathetic? 

 

6 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

Just once I'd like to see the fans of this franchise admit that there's more to winning football games than having a QB and that the solution to all team problems is not to throw the QB into the woodchipper and draft another one. 

 

I think if you looked back at the posting history of some of those you're labelling "pathetic", even when not discussing this team in specific, a lot have called a for a long long time for building from the trenches outward. You're trying to make a scarecrow here. 

 

6 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

 

It's infuriating to be the fan of the second worst team in the league when it comes to this attitude (second only to the Jets) and watch it unfold in realtime again and again.  And they DON'T learn, and they will NEVER learn unless they're called out, and probably not even then.

 

Except you're not calling people out, you're making a very generalist passive aggressive post. If you want to talk about learning, how about having a reasoned conversation without resorting to calling people "haters" and "pathetic" for not having an opinion exactly in line with yours. Sure come at people for the content of their post, but don't do this. It's baiting and inflammatory. 

[Two_pound 237]

More Chad Kelly discussion. The Colts have been rotating ps players all season thus far. Especially rb and dl players. But Kelly stays. Who is out there that could be a better ps man than Kelly, another dl, rb, wr? If the Colts don't have plans for Kelly in the future, why keep him around? Is it just to help him stay out of trouble? That is very honorable, and I admire coach Reich for doing that. Because let's face it, the number ten guy on your practice squad isn't going to be the key piece of the puzzle to get you to the sb. I'm on record as saying Kelly will be here next season battling for the starting job.

[Kangaroo 32]

I read a few weeks ago that Bucky Brooks reckons we are a better team with Brissett than with Luck--I wonder what stuff he is smoking.  We need to look for a more permanent alternative at QB.  At best, Brissett is a good backup

[Jdubu 1,304]

4 hours ago, Kangaroo said:

I read a few weeks ago that Bucky Brooks reckons we are a better team with Brissett than with Luck--I wonder what stuff he is smoking.  We need to look for a more permanent alternative at QB.  At best, Brissett is a good backup

If JB can learn to scan the defense while in the fire, he should stay and he will do well. If we continue to see he can’t get past his first to second read with a high frequency, then he has to go. It’s early enough in his starting career that it’s entirely possible he is going to be able to do that. His leadership qualities are superb, his strength at QB is superb, we know he has the arm to flick it 40 yards downfield but will he? The coaches either can see he has the ability to do the things needed to move ahead or they don’t. I think their evaluations, of non biased, will give the team their direction for the future. 
 

mad for next season, perhaps offer Hoyer a part of the qb’s coaching staff as an assistant if he is honestly that highly regarded as a film guy. No need to really ever see him on the field again during the game though. 

[Myles 2,945]

5 hours ago, Two_pound said:

More Chad Kelly discussion. The Colts have been rotating ps players all season thus far. Especially rb and dl players. But Kelly stays. Who is out there that could be a better ps man than Kelly, another dl, rb, wr? If the Colts don't have plans for Kelly in the future, why keep him around? Is it just to help him stay out of trouble? That is very honorable, and I admire coach Reich for doing that. Because let's face it, the number ten guy on your practice squad isn't going to be the key piece of the puzzle to get you to the sb. I'm on record as saying Kelly will be here next season battling for the starting job.

I think it is typical for a team to keep a QB on the PS.  Walker had that gig for a few years and I'm pretty certain that the Colts had no plans for him either.

[SteelCityColt 8,236]

11 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think it is typical for a team to keep a QB on the PS.  Walker had that gig for a few years and I'm pretty certain that the Colts had no plans for him either.

 

I'd guess at:

 

1) They think he's talented enough, or has enough potential, but want to see proof of maturity.

2) They think he is raw but could be refined into a viable QB

3) They want to have a QB to call up in case of injury to Brissett/Hoyer who has at least pretended to read the play book. 

4) He brings $wag, one of the most valued intangibles of any QB assessment. 

 

Probably a combo of the above. It's a low cost, low chance, high pay off investment really. The hype/noise isn't in line with the reality of the situation.