Finding the Franchise

[crazycolt1]

10 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I've already kind of done that in a different thread :-)

What CC needs to consider, and what has been discussed ad nauseam, is that our passing game looked bad when healthy, with basically the same group that was number 6 last year. Injuries can for sure be part of the conservation, but so are the comparatives from last year (and regression this year), and also the failure to see open wide in general all year long (regardless of level of talent).

I have considered it. 

What me and you see and difference of opinion for various reasons are not considered and looked at like Ballard will look at things. 

Regardless I will trust Ballard to do what he thinks is best, he is paid well to make the choices. 

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think the injuries this year are far worse than last year. Luck is so good that he probably could make Pascal look like TY but not many can.

Injuries to new starters, yes. But the starters last year are basically the depth that has been available most of the year. TY missed 2.5 games last year, and was severely hobbled in 3 other games IIRC. It's just been recent that Rogers and Ebron are gone, and we actually have Doyle back and healthy this year so a net/net zero with TE.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, ojsglove said:

Pascal has stepped up big time in TY's absents,  I personally think he could be WR1 on several teams.  We have a pitching problem, not a catching problem.

I look at Pascal as a #3 but that is my opinion. Average, not great/not bad. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Going into the season there were some that thought Pascal wouldn't make the roster. I had him as a #4, he is good enough to be a #3 IMO. 

[Fisticuffs111]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Going into the season there were some that thought Pascal wouldn't make the roster. I had him as a #4, he is good enough to be a #3 IMO. 

 

I’ll admit that I didn’t think as highly of Pascal in the preseason as I do now, but I remember thinking he was a lock to make the roster because of how highly the coaches, specifically the WR coach, spoke of him around cut down time. But yeah, he’s definitely more than what I thought he was before now.

[shasta519]

8 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

None of those QB's had a GM like Ballard either. If Ballard is a top 5 GM in the league which many think so then he can build a good team around any average QB and we should have a shot of winning it all. Honestly I would take JB over any of the QB's you just named as well.

 

But my point is...even if he could build around an average QB...why should he? For starters, no GM is good enough to build a consistent Super Bowl team without a legit QB. Dorsey was pretty damn good in KC...and those teams were talented...yet they won 1 playoff game in 4-5 years.

 

If Ballard is truly a top 5 GM...then that's even more reason to shoot for a legit franchise QB...not settle on an average QB. A top 5 GM, a franchise QB and top tier coaching is the stuff of dynasties...or multiple rings in a 5-6 year span. Why you intentionally put yourself at a disadvantage in one area...when you have clear advantages in other areas? Just seems like you are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

I mean...is he going to just stop being a good GM or just stop adding talent to the roster because they used resources on a QB? I have always thought this "great roster vs. great QB" debate was a false choice (sort of like FA vs. the draft). Why not have both? Sure there are opportunity costs and financial logistics involved in finding and keeping a top tier QB...but a savvy GM as good as Ballard is purported to be...should be able to overcome that...especially early on in that QB's contract...and especially when he's sitting on $100M in cap space.

 

We all got a taste of what an improving Ballard team with a top tier QB could look like last year...that's the direction I want to see this team take. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Fisticuffs111 said:

 

I’ll admit that I didn’t think of highly of Pascal in the preseason, but I remember thinking he was a lock to make the roster because of how highly the coaches, specifically he WR coach, talked about him.

Yeah I had him at #4, I liked TY, Funchess, and Campbell better going into the season. I just put Pascal 4th because I love his work ethic and his hands are decent. I liked him better than Cain or Rogers hence the #4.

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I have considered it. 

What me and you see and difference of opinion for various reasons are not considered and looked at like Ballard will look at things. 

Regardless I will trust Ballard to do what he thinks is best, he is paid well to make the choices. 

I don't think either of us can say exactly how Ballard does, or does not, look at things. We know some basics though. We know both he and FR are stats guys, and Ballard has grown the analytics team since coming to Indy. We know one of Ballards core responsibilities is build a team that not only wins, but also one that fills seats and generates revenue. We also know he loves leadership and the "right guys".

 

I think we both agree that Ballard is a very smart guy. He knows everything about JB. He knows his flaws from college, he knows every stat that has been laid out by all of us here, plus probably a bunch more. He knows exactly what last year's team and players did, and the difference in their performance to date this year.

 

I agree that the FO didn't get to evaluate JB under perfect/ideal situations, but frankly that never happens. He's not going to give pure grace for injuries, and disregard that JB still has a big problem with missing wide open guys regardless of who they are. He sees it all, and a lot more. And I'm sure he knows sometimes you have to make a call without ideal input/evaluation. 

 

I do think that Ballard will do what ever he does, and we'll likely never know all the past, current, and future variables he may weigh. I just know where I'd put my money.

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

But my point is...even if he could build around an average QB...why should he? For starters, no GM is good enough to build a consistent Super Bowl team without a legit QB. Dorsey was pretty damn good in KC...and those teams were talented...yet they won 1 playoff game in 4-5 years.

 

But if Ballard is truly a top 5 GM...then that's even more reason to shoot for a legit franchise QB...not settle on an average QB. A top 5 GM, a franchise QB and top tier coaching is the stuff of dynasties...or at the very least...multiple rings in a 5-6 year span. Why you intentionally put yourself at a disadvantage in one area...when you have clear advantages in other areas? Just seems like you are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

I mean...is he going to just stop being a good GM or just stop adding talent to the roster because they used resources on a QB? I have always thought this "great roster vs. great QB" debate was a false choice (sort of like FA vs. the draft). Why not have both? Sure there are opportunity costs and financial logistics involved in finding and keeping a top tier QB...but a savvy GM as good as Ballard is purported to be...should be able to overcome that...especially early on in that QB's contract...and especially when he's sitting on $100M in cap space.

 

We all got a taste of what an improving Ballard team with a top tier QB could look like last year...that's the direction I want to see this team take. 

I get your point, I am sure Ballard agree's. JB even by my eye ball test doesn't suck. We are just used to Peyton and Luck. Ballard may draft a QB and to be honest I would be happy if he did but not in round 1. He may get a gem in round 2 or 3 or so.

[Fisticuffs111]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I had him at #4, I liked TY, Funchess, and Campbell better going into the season. I just put Pascal 4th because I love his work ethic and his hands are decent. I liked him better than Cain or Rogers hence the #4.

 

Yeah, you’re right in your original post that there were people questioning whether or not he’d make the roster though. Especially with Fountain ballin out in TC. Man, that injury was even more unfortunate looking back. I really hope he can carve a role out for himself here.

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

First in the NFL in fewest percentage of dropbacks with ball held for less than 2.5 seconds (36.7)*

 

First in the NFL in dropbacks with ball held for more than 2.5 seconds (63.3)*

 

How can he be both of those things?

 

Also...Florio really likes JB...and I am sure it has nothing to do with the team that drafted him.

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

 

Yeah, you’re right in your original post that there were people questioning whether or not he’d make the roster though. Especially with Fountain ballin out in TC. Man, that injury was even more unfortunate looking back. I really hope he can carve a role out for himself here.

I never trusted Fountain staying healthy and that is sad to say because is an awesome talent. I liked TY, Funchess, Campbell, Pascal, and Cain going in. I thought Rogers would make the 53 because of Punt Returns.

[shasta519]

21 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I get your point, I am sure Ballard agree's. JB even by my eye ball test doesn't suck. We are just used to Peyton and Luck. Ballard may draft a QB and to be honest I would be happy if he did but not in round 1. He may get a gem in round 2 or 3 or so.

 

I think 2nd round is as low as he goes...but we will really just don't know anything (yet) about how he will approach it. QB is just such a different position than any other when it comes to drafting.

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I think 2nd round is as low as he goes...but we will really just don't know anything (yet) about how he will approach it. QB is just such a different position than any other when it comes to drafting.

Maybe we strike lightning a different way instead of getting the #1. Wilson went in round 3.

[The Peytonator]

I don’t care if this team had Tyreek Hill and Deandre Hopkins, Brissett would still stand in the pocket for five seconds and then dump it off to Doyle in the flat. The guy is not the answer, and a bunch of cherry picked stats about his ‘efficiency’ is not going to change that. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

9 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I look at Pascal as a #3 but that is my opinion. Average, not great/not bad. 

Pascal is the kind of WR that isn’t going to get open on his own or out run guys. He is though great on certain routes. He has had some pretty good contested catches this year. A gear number 3.

[aaron11]

10 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

25th in passing means zero in assessing a QB that has no weapons.

 

they have not missed the whole year, he didnt do that much early on either

 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

9 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Injuries to new starters, yes. But the starters last year are basically the depth that has been available most of the year. TY missed 2.5 games last year, and was severely hobbled in 3 other games IIRC. It's just been recent that Rogers and Ebron are gone, and we actually have Doyle back and healthy this year so a net/net zero with TE.

 

When you have 5 of the 6 WR missing as many games this year we are much more injured then last year. Very few teams have a QB like Luck that can make anyone look great. Guys like Luck and Manning are rare talents that only come along once in a decade.  If pascal and Rogers are your one and two your in trouble. Look at the trouble Brady is having with the lack of playmakers.

 

 

[aaron11]

6 hours ago, The Peytonator said:

I don’t care if this team had Tyreek Hill and Deandre Hopkins, Brissett would still stand in the pocket for five seconds and then dump it off to Doyle in the flat. The guy is not the answer, and a bunch of cherry picked stats about his ‘efficiency’ is not going to change that. 

 

i agree with this. we dont have the greatest weapons atm but they wouldnt do much if we did

 

 

[MPStack]

9 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

I think 2nd round is as low as he goes...but we will really just don't know anything (yet) about how he will approach it. QB is just such a different position than any other when it comes to drafting.

I’m certain most GMs don’t think, “we can get our QB of the future in the 2nd Rd or later” when it’s definitely a priority.

 

 

 

[aaron11]

10 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

25th in passing means zero in assessing a QB that has no weapons.

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-quarterback-rankings-entering-week-14-2019

 

they dont think much of him either, good weapons would go to waste

[MPStack]

5 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-quarterback-rankings-entering-week-14-2019

 

they dont think much of him either, good weapons would go to waste

 

21.5m next season! 
 

[shasta519]

41 minutes ago, MPStack said:

I’m certain most GMs don’t think, “we can get our QB of the future in the 2nd Rd or later” when it’s definitely a priority.

 

 

 

 

Yeah...I can’t imagine a GM having that mindset...unless they just inexplicably loved a couple of middle round prospects.

 

And even in that case...they are taking them earlier than they probably need to.

 

I am all for using a 1st on a guy they want...and I don’t think Ballard will mess around. But he will have a lot more intel in a few months...and can plan accordingly. 

[shasta519]

38 minutes ago, MPStack said:

 

21.5m next season! 
 

 

Yeah...JB is a good dude...but when people say they feel bad for him...I can’t help but laugh a little. He luckboxed into a starting QB job and then got a one-year $28M extension before even playing a snap. 

 

I understand their reasons for doing it...but I wish they hadn’t. But since they did...I hope they take advantage and bring in a rookie to groom.

 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-quarterback-rankings-entering-week-14-2019

 

they dont think much of him either, good weapons would go to waste

 

PFF is what it is...but using their criteria...it’s hard to argue with that ranking...or at least somewhere in that area. 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-quarterback-rankings-entering-week-14-2019

 

they dont think much of him either, good weapons would go to waste

How does any QB in the NFL rate 33rd? 

Regardless of your opinion of Brissett PFFs ranking are nonsense. 

[shasta519]

49 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

How does any QB in the NFL rate 33rd? 

Regardless of your opinion of Brissett PFFs ranking are nonsense. 

 

I think they have a qualifying cut off...probably snaps or attempts...so in theory...you could have upwards of 40 QBs ranked...depending on what it is.

 

I am not the biggest fan of PFF either...but they seem to be using criteria here that would rank JB low. Rather that's the correct way to do it (or if any of their ways)...is a debate for another day...haha.

[CanuckColt]

On 12/4/2019 at 5:48 PM, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

I’m not saying that we stick with him. But do you really see a QB in this draft that you feel would change the franchise?

 

...

 

also, if he sucks next year, then you bottom out and can get Lawrence or Fields. 

Trevor Lawrence would be a great pick.

I would be happy if Ballard traded a ton of picks for this guy.

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, CanuckColt said:

Trevor Lawrence would be a great pick.

I would be happy if Ballard traded a ton of picks for this guy.

Yeah he has pretty long hair and doesn't look near as great as Luck did coming out. We would have to go 0-16/or whatever to get him, no thanks. We aren't trading a ton of picks for Andrew Luck LITE  . That would hurt the team too trading a ton of picks.

[EastStreet]

11 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

When you have 5 of the 6 WR missing as many games this year we are much more injured then last year. Very few teams have a QB like Luck that can make anyone look great. Guys like Luck and Manning are rare talents that only come along once in a decade.  If pascal and Rogers are your one and two your in trouble. Look at the trouble Brady is having with the lack of playmakers.

Sorry, I expect a QB to hit open guys, whomever they are.

It doesn't take a Luck to see open guys. I'm not saying anyone can make Pascal or Rogers look great, but they both are good depth WRs. And they were the #2 and #3 options last year in many games. 

[EastStreet]

6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah he has pretty long hair and doesn't look near as great as Luck did coming out. We would have to go 0-16/or whatever to get him, no thanks. We aren't trading a ton of picks for Andrew Luck LITE  . That would hurt the team too trading a ton of picks.

Sorry 2006, but you get 4 Pinocchios :-). Lawrence's true freshman year was a lot better than Luck's redshirt freshman year, and sophomore years are shaping up to be very similar, which Lawrence has at least 2 games to go (the numbers include bowls for both)

 

Keep in mind Lawrence is only a true Soph, and Luck took a redshirt (so he had a year advantage in learning the system, and the stats below).

 

Here's their comparative stats.

 

Frosh Year

Lawrence 65%, 3280 yards, 8.3 avg, 30/4 TD/INT ratio, 157.6 PR

Luck (red shirt) 56%, 2575, 8.9 avg, 13/4, 143.5 PR

 

Soph Year (Lawrence's soph year isn't done yet)

Lawrence 69%, 2870 yards, 9.1 avg, 30/8, 171.5 PR

Luck 70%, 3338 yards, 9.0 avg, 32/8, 170 PR

[NewColtsFan]

I’m a Luck guy and count me as one who clearly acknowledges that Lawrence’s first year was far better than Luck’s.   Not even close.

 

The only mitigating factor is that Lawrence was on a much better team.  Surrounded by far superior players on both sides of the ball.   Made his job much easier.

 

Still...   Lawrence would get the edge comparing their respective first years on the field. 

[EastStreet]

11 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’m a Luck guy and count me as one who clearly acknowledges that Lawrence’s first year was far better than Luck’s.   Not even close.

 

The only mitigating factor is that Lawrence was on a much better team.  Surrounded by far superior players on both sides of the ball.   Made his job much easier.

 

Still...   Lawrence would get the edge comparing their respective first years on the field. 

 

Luck had a lot of talent around him at Stanford, and was playing in a very weak Pac12 at the time. The Pac12 IIRC had very bad Ds too during those years Only Oregon and USC where good (really only on O), and USC was highly erratic in those years. Luck had an awesome line, and had guys like Gafney, Gerhart, and Taylor at RB, TEs like Fleener and Ertz, and some decent WRs like Whalen and more. The only thing much better about Clemson was the D, and Stanford still had guys like Richard Sherman.... 

[NewColtsFan]

17 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

Luck had a lot of talent around him at Stanford, and was playing in a very weak Pac12 at the time. The Pac12 IIRC had very bad Ds too during those years Only Oregon and USC where good (really only on O), and USC was highly erratic in those years. Luck had an awesome line, and had guys like Gafney, Gerhart, and Taylor at RB, TEs like Fleener and Ertz, and some decent WRs like Whalen and more. The only thing much better about Clemson was the D, and Stanford still had guys like Richard Sherman.... 

 

Remember...   before I’m a Colts fan, I’m a Stanford fan.  Been one for roughly 50 years.   I know all the players Luck had.   Saw every game he played at Stanford. 
 

I was only referencing Luck’s first year. 2009.    As you noted, his 57 percent completion season.    The talent started showing up his first year playing.  But it was much more apparent in 10 and 11.   Lots more talent there. 

[EastStreet]

29 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Remember...   before I’m a Colts fan, I’m a Stanford fan.  Been one for roughly 50 years.   I know all the players Luck had.   Saw every game he played at Stanford. 
 

I was only referencing Luck’s first year. 2009.    As you noted, his 57 percent completion season.    The talent started showing up his first year playing.  But it was much more apparent in 10 and 11.   Lots more talent there. 

You didn't specify 2009. And I also follow every ND opponent's (especially Stanford, USC, and scUM) recruiting and seasons very close.

 

In 2009 he did have Gerhart, Taylor, and Gaffney at RB, Fleener and Ertz (RS) at TE, and Whalen, Owusu, and Baldwin at WR. They certainly were not void of talent. Stanford's recruiting got way better after Harbaugh got there in 2007 but yes, it did take a few years to settle in. If you feel better using 2010 vs TL's 2019, that's fine. The numbers are already close, and TL should have as good or better after his next two games.

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Sorry 2006, but you get 4 Pinocchios :-). Lawrence's true freshman year was a lot better than Luck's redshirt freshman year, and sophomore years are shaping up to be very similar, which Lawrence has at least 2 games to go (the numbers include bowls for both)

 

Keep in mind Lawrence is only a true Soph, and Luck took a redshirt (so he had a year advantage in learning the system, and the stats below).

 

Here's their comparative stats.

 

Frosh Year

Lawrence 65%, 3280 yards, 8.3 avg, 30/4 TD/INT ratio, 157.6 PR

Luck (red shirt) 56%, 2575, 8.9 avg, 13/4, 143.5 PR

 

Soph Year (Lawrence's soph year isn't done yet)

Lawrence 69%, 2870 yards, 9.1 avg, 30/8, 171.5 PR

Luck 70%, 3338 yards, 9.0 avg, 32/8, 170 PR

People were comparing Andrew Luck to John Elway when he came out. I haven't heard 1 person in the media compare Lawrence to John Elway or anyone close to that. Stats are stats but I would be surprised if Lawrence could take a 2-14 team to 11-5 like Luck did as a rookie. 

[aaron11]

19 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Regardless of your opinion of Brissett PFFs ranking are nonsense. 

they have their opinion, you have yours and i have mine

 

they list how they grade things

 

there are more than 32 because thats how many have played this year.  

[LuckyHorseShoe§]

On 12/5/2019 at 7:52 PM, MPStack said:

How do you figure? I guarantee M. Ryan will be in the HOF and it wouldn’t be a stretch for Stafford.  

Easy. Unless you’re Phillip Rivers, you need to win a SB to get into the Hall. That’s just the name of the game. Also, as good as Ryan and Stafford have been, there are always lots of guys who deserve it more. Maybe someday they’ll get in, but not soon.

Whether we think Stafford or Ryan will be HOF isn’t really relevant anyways

[EastStreet]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

People were comparing Andrew Luck to John Elway when he came out. I haven't heard 1 person in the media compare Lawrence to John Elway or anyone close to that. Stats are stats but I would be surprised if Lawrence could take a 2-14 team to 11-5 like Luck did as a rookie. 

 

Actually Matt Miller (and others) compared Lawrence to both Manning and Luck lol... 

I've heard a lot of comps actually to Manning, which is rare for a guy who was 2-3 years from coming out. Coming out of HS, he was thought to be the best ever recruit, and after his true frosh year, the NFL scouts said he would easily go #1 if he could. He'd easily go #1 this year over everyone too IMO, even with his early season leveling off. 

 

Honestly though, I really like Burrow as much. He has looked NFL ready today in a lot of situations. Recognized and punished the blitz, great anticipation leading throws, goes through progressions really really well. 

[Myles]

20 hours ago, LuckyHorseShoe§ said:

Easy. Unless you’re Phillip Rivers, you need to win a SB to get into the Hall. That’s just the name of the game. Also, as good as Ryan and Stafford have been, there are always lots of guys who deserve it more. Maybe someday they’ll get in, but not soon.

Whether we think Stafford or Ryan will be HOF isn’t really relevant anyways

I wouldn't put Rivers, Ryan or Stafford in the HOF.  None of them has been a top 3 QB in the league any season.