OL Regression...

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Your view in the first paragraph is outdated. Besides the Mahomes exception, the NFL backs me up on this. QB's start right away now.

 

As far the second paragraph, I can tell you have never watched a cincinatti bengals game (unless they play the colts). Dalton has nothing on the Bengals. No O-Line, no AJ Green, and the run game was terrible the first half of the year. Dalton would thrive as a stopgap option on this team.

 

QBs also fail right away. More often than they succeed.

 

I've watched plenty Bengals games. I've even seen them in person. (Haven't you said several times that you don't really watch games??) Dalton is a paragon of mediocrity. His efficiency, adjusted yards/attempt, deep ball effectiveness, red zone efficiency, production from a clean pocket vs under pressure, etc., all basically the same as JB. The one thing he does better than JB is get rid of the ball quickly, but that doesn't lead to him making plays. He's mediocre. The only times he's ever been anything worth talking about is when he had AJ Green at the height of his powers.

[Coffeedrinker]

18 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

And I asked if you could prove it. Which you couldn't and I'm fine with that.

 

Ah, but you're looking into the o-line in isolation. If we had a top 3 D-Line, a top 3 receiving corps or a top 3 defensive backfield would we have a better record. Who knows?

Actually history tells us one thing.  There is a thing called common sense that is why there is even a mantra for it... "it all starts up front".  There is not a mantra for, it all starts in the back or it all starts with the receiving corps.  There is a reason for that... it's because it has been shown time and time again throughout the history of the NFL that a good or great offensive line helps the entire team.  Just like I can't prove the Colts would have had a better record if Luck played QB in 2019 (or another Qb better than JB) but common sense would indicate it is so.

Quote

 

We've put our resources where we have. There isn't another line in football made up of 3 first rounders and a second rounder as far as I know so we should expect excellence to be fair.

Neither I nor anyone else claimed they were exceeding expectations just that they are one of the top units in the NFL.

[Yoshinator]

Just now, Superman said:

 

QBs also fail right away. More often than they succeed.

 

I've watched plenty Bengals games. I've even seen them in person. (Haven't you said several times that you don't really watch games??) Dalton is a paragon of mediocrity. His efficiency, adjusted yards/attempt, deep ball effectiveness, red zone efficiency, production from a clean pocket vs under pressure, etc., all basically the same as JB. The one thing he does better than JB is get rid of the ball quickly, but that doesn't lead to him making plays. He's mediocre. The only times he's ever been anything worth talking about is when he had AJ Green at the height of his powers.

All positions fail more than they succeed. QB is literally the hardest. All benching a QB does is set them behind in most cases. Dalton is JB with a terrible O-Line, no running game when he struggled, and no AJ Green.

 

In other words, JB on his best day is Dalton on his worst. Give Dalton this offense and watch how much better this team gets.

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

The thing is... if we draft a QB I don't want to start him if he's not ready and is overwhelmed by the task of running the offense, but I kind of am good with starting him if he looks mentally capable of processing and executing the offense, even if his performance would not be amazing and he will likely make a lot of rookie mistakes. I'd take that as the price. 

 

Also, most rookies drafted high get thrown into it with horrible cast around them. We actually have pretty good pieces all around that offense. We have a great OLine, we have a stable RB, we have a reliable TE, we have an experienced game breaker in TY Hilton, and hopefully some more weapons will be coming our way in the summer. Whoever we draft won't be thrown to the wolves the same way most rookie QBs are. 

 

You're not making a rule about when and how to start a young QB. And I'm fine with that. I've said plenty times, if we draft a QB and he is ready in Year 1, put him on the field.

 

For some reason, nuance is lost on some people. Everyone wants to deal in extremes.

 

All I'm saying is that the reason for not wanting to force a young QB into the action isn't because everyone is trying to recreate the Patrick Mahomes experience. It's because QB is a really difficult position to play. It's a tough transition from college -- even though teams throw a lot more now, QBs are not put in charge of the offense, they run 90% check-with-mes, practices and gameplans are different, defenses are different, competition level is different, game speed is different, etc. Just because a guy is talented and has a high ceiling doesn't mean he's ready to play in the NFL. 

 

It's a case by case situation. I have no problem with starting a rookie, but there are a lot of factors to consider. 

[ClaytonColt]

2 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Actually history tells us one thing.  There is a thing called common sense that is why there is even a mantra for it... "it all starts up front".  There is not a mantra for, it all starts in the back or it all starts with the receiving corps.  There is a reason for that... it's because it has been shown time and time again throughout the history of the NFL that a good or great offensive line helps the entire team.  Just like I can't prove the Colts would have had a better record if Luck played QB in 2019 (or another Qb better than JB) but common sense would indicate it is so.

Neither I nor anyone else claimed they were exceeding expectations just that they are one of the top units in the NFL.

Personally, I don't care what you do or don't get "giddy" about.  

I can buy into that common sense. Who were the last Championship team to have a greatly talented O-line?

 

Having a top unit on a poor team is the very definition of "meh"

 

I didn't ask you to care. I'm simply stating that I would like a more direct correlation between having a good o-line and being successful. Unless we don't actually care about winning any more.

[hoosierhawk]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's not true. The point is you don't throw a young QB to the wolves, especially if he still needs work. You can kill a young QB very easily.

 

 

I don't feel at all we would be throwing a young QB to the wolves. We have a very good offensive line and a decent  all around team and a HC who is supposedly a good QB coach. It's guys like Rosen and Darnald who went to very poor teams and were basically thrown to the wolves.  I am not one who believes JB will improve much at all and would hate to go through another season like last year. At least with a young QB I feel there is hope unless he is not good to begin with. Guys talking of waiting to round 3 or 4 to draft a QB I feel is a waste of a draft pick.

[Yoshinator]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're not making a rule about when and how to start a young QB. And I'm fine with that. I've said plenty times, if we draft a QB and he is ready in Year 1, put him on the field.

 

For some reason, nuance is lost on some people. Everyone wants to deal in extremes.

 

All I'm saying is that the reason for not wanting to force a young QB into the action isn't because everyone is trying to recreate the Patrick Mahomes experience. It's because QB is a really difficult position to play. It's a tough transition from college -- even though teams throw a lot more now, QBs are not put in charge of the offense, they run 90% check-with-mes, practices and gameplans are different, defenses are different, competition level is different, game speed is different, etc. Just because a guy is talented and has a high ceiling doesn't mean he's ready to play in the NFL. 

 

It's a case by case situation. I have no problem with starting a rookie, but there are a lot of factors to consider. 

If we have a solid veteran option from FA or trade to start over a rookie, that's fine. We can't, under any circumstances, allow Brissett to be the starting QB next year. If it came down to Brissett and a rookie, with no signed veteran, you have to start the rookie. That's my opinion on this subject. Take it or leave it.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

All positions fail more than they succeed. QB is literally the hardest. All benching a QB does is set them behind in most cases. Dalton is JB with a terrible O-Line, no running game when he struggled, and no AJ Green.

 

In other words, JB on his best day is Dalton on his worst. Give Dalton this offense and watch how much better this team gets.

 

I'm very excited about the proposition of Andy Dalton making the Colts a 9-7 team in 2020. That really gets me going. (By the way, the 2019 Colts had a strong shot at being 9-7 or better if JB isn't hurt.) Dalton is JB with a quicker release, the same amount of playmaking, and a different name.

 

There are a ton of successful QBs who have sat for a few weeks, some for a year, some multiple years. Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Jared Goff, Lamar Jackson (so the two most recent MVPs), Dak Prescott, etc. 

 

And then there are QBs who started right away with success. But you acting like not starting a guy right away is a bad thing is not based in reality. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

I don't feel at all we would be throwing a young QB to the wolves. We have a very good offensive line and a decent  all around team and a HC who is supposedly a good QB coach. It's guys like Rosen and Darnald who went to very poor teams and were basically thrown to the wolves.  I am not one who believes JB will improve much at all and would hate to go through another season like last year. At least with a young QB I feel there is hope unless he is not good to begin with. Guys talking of waiting to round 3 or 4 to draft a QB I feel is a waste of a draft pick.

 

That's a fair statement. It's very different from the earlier statement I took issue with.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If we have a solid veteran option from FA or trade to start over a rookie, that's fine. We can't, under any circumstances, allow Brissett to be the starting QB next year. If it came down to Brissett and a rookie, with no signed veteran, you have to start the rookie. That's my opinion on this subject. Take it or leave it.

 

I'd much rather be starting a rookie who we think is ready, than JB. But I'm not on the "Anyone But JB" bandwagon. 

[Myles]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

QBs also fail right away. More often than they succeed.

 

I've watched plenty Bengals games. I've even seen them in person. (Haven't you said several times that you don't really watch games??) Dalton is a paragon of mediocrity. His efficiency, adjusted yards/attempt, deep ball effectiveness, red zone efficiency, production from a clean pocket vs under pressure, etc., all basically the same as JB. The one thing he does better than JB is get rid of the ball quickly, but that doesn't lead to him making plays. He's mediocre. The only times he's ever been anything worth talking about is when he had AJ Green at the height of his powers.

He is an improvement over Brissett.  

Not huge, but an improvement none the less.  

[csmopar]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

QBs also fail right away. More often than they succeed.

 

I've watched plenty Bengals games. I've even seen them in person. (Haven't you said several times that you don't really watch games??) Dalton is a paragon of mediocrity. His efficiency, adjusted yards/attempt, deep ball effectiveness, red zone efficiency, production from a clean pocket vs under pressure, etc., all basically the same as JB. The one thing he does better than JB is get rid of the ball quickly, but that doesn't lead to him making plays. He's mediocre. The only times he's ever been anything worth talking about is when he had AJ Green at the height of his powers.

The rest of my family are HUGE Bengals fans and I completely concur with this statement. Carson Palmer was the only QB worth a bucket of spit they’ve had in twenty years. 

1 minute ago, Myles said:

He is an improvement over Brissett.  

Not huge, but an improvement none the less.  

So we pay for a QB ranked number 27 to replace the QB ranked 28th?

[Yoshinator]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm very excited about the proposition of Andy Dalton making the Colts a 9-7 team in 2020. That really gets me going. (By the way, the 2019 Colts had a strong shot at being 9-7 or better if JB isn't hurt.) Dalton is JB with a quicker release, the same amount of playmaking, and a different name.

 

There are a ton of successful QBs who have sat for a few weeks, some for a year, some multiple years. Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Jared Goff, Lamar Jackson (so the two most recent MVPs), Dak Prescott, etc. 

 

And then there are QBs who started right away with success. But you acting like not starting a guy right away is a bad thing is not based in reality. 

Well, if Brissett plays like he did the second half of the year (which he probably will with teams adjusting to him), we'd probably win 4-5 games with him next year. So I'll take 9-7 with Dalton, thank you very much. I don't even remember 2004 that Rivers and Eli sat, sounds strange for how high they were drafted. 

 

Eli was never a good QB, same for Goff. Brady was a 6th rounder, so of course he sat. I'll give you Dak, Brees, and Rodgers. Lamar didn't need to be benched, he figured it out in the offseason. So half of them probably benefited from benching.

 

Another thing to consider. What would our rookie learn from Brissett? Not much.

[Superman]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

Well, if Brissett plays like he did the second half of the year (which he probably will with teams adjusting to him), we'd probably win 4-5 games with him next year. So I'll take 9-7 with Dalton, thank you very much. I don't even remember 2004 that Rivers and Eli sat, sounds strange for how high they were drafted. 

 

Eli was never a good QB, same for Goff. Brady was a 6th rounder, so of course he sat. I'll give you Dak, Brees, and Rodgers. Lamar didn't need to be benched, he figured it out in the offseason. So half of them probably benefited from benching.

 

Another thing to consider. What would our rookie learn from Brissett? Not much.

 

Eli started seven games as a rookie; Kurt Warner was ahead of him until he got hurt. He was never outstanding, but he was a good QB. Let's not get crazy. He's has a long career with some reasonable success, and he's likely going to the HOF at some point. (He's better than Andy Dalton, which makes your whole approach here strange, IMO.)

 

Rivers sat two years, behind Brees. We don't have Warner or Brees on our roster, so it's a lower bar to clear for a rookie to start for us, but both of these guys we're talking about have had long, successful careers. Both were first rounders. Both likely HOFers. And both sat.

 

Goff was an MVP candidate last season. Again, Dalton is good, but Goff isn't?

 

The Lamar plan was masterful. If Flacco wasn't so awful, Lamar wouldn't have played at all in 2018. The Ravens completely changed their offense -- new OC, new receivers, new RBs -- to complement Lamar, and then handed him the keys after a year and a half of diligent prep work. And it's very similar to the Mahomes plan.

 

Of course, the starting point for all these guys is talent. Doesn't matter how you transition to a new QB if he isn't good. But even very talented QBs have benefited from a gradual, deliberate transition, including recently.

 

You're coming up with all this post hoc conditions, but the truth is that your earlier statement -- all benching a QB does is set them behind -- is not based in reality. 

 

To the bolded, I woudn't expect JB to mentor a rookie. I've never used that as an argument in favor of keeping or starting JB in 2020. I think it's an overstated factor when it comes to the transition to a young QB. 

[The Fish]

24 minutes ago, Myles said:

He is an improvement over Brissett.  

Not huge, but an improvement none the less.  

I'll go one further, Dalton at his best (which most certainly wasn't the 2019 season) is a whole lot better of a passer with regards to placement and accuracy than JB.

 

If I had to choose in a bubble, I'd take Dalton and not hesitate. JB is just that good.

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Eli started seven games as a rookie; Kurt Warner was ahead of him until he got hurt. He was never outstanding, but he was a good QB. Let's not get crazy. He's has a long career with some reasonable success, and he's likely going to the HOF at some point. (He's better than Andy Dalton, which makes your whole approach here strange, IMO.)

 

Rivers sat two years, behind Brees. We don't have Warner or Brees on our roster, so it's a lower bar to clear for a rookie to start for us, but both of these guys we're talking about have had long, successful careers. Both were first rounders. Both likely HOFers. And both sat.

 

Goff was an MVP candidate last season. Again, Dalton is good, but Goff isn't?

 

The Lamar plan was masterful. If Flacco wasn't so awful, Lamar wouldn't have played at all in 2018. The Ravens completely changed their offense -- new OC, new receivers, new RBs -- to complement Lamar, and then handed him the keys after a year and a half of diligent prep work. And it's very similar to the Mahomes plan.

 

Of course, the starting point for all these guys is talent. Doesn't matter how you transition to a new QB if he isn't good. But even very talented QBs have benefited from a gradual, deliberate transition, including recently.

 

You're coming up with all this post hoc conditions, but the truth is that your earlier statement -- all benching a QB does is set them behind -- is not based in reality. 

 

To the bolded, I woudn't expect JB to mentor a rookie. I've never used that as an argument in favor of keeping or starting JB in 2020. I think it's an overstated factor when it comes to the transition to a young QB. 

Would you rather waste another year with Brissett knowing we won't make the playoffs and accomplish nothing, or start the rookie and miss the playoffs, but get him experience and development? Brissett offers nothing to teach the rookie. His potential is very low at the moment. We will have to pay our players very soon, they won't be on cheap contracts much longer. We are wasting their rookie years. We need to get the QB situation settled as soon as possible.

 

 

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Would you rather waste another year with Brissett knowing we won't make the playoffs and accomplish nothing, or start the rookie and miss the playoffs, but get him experience and development? Brissett offers nothing to teach the rookie. His potential is very low at the moment. We will have to pay our players very soon, they won't be on cheap contracts much longer. We are wasting their rookie years. We need to get the QB situation settled as soon as possible.

 

 

But signing a washed up FA QB is like putting a band aid on a leg that has been sheered off. Ain’t gonna do a thing long term

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

But signing a washed up FA QB is like putting a band aid on a leg that has been sheered off. Ain’t gonna do a thing long term

I agree. All it does is give us a chance to make the playoffs for a year while the rookie develops. If we make the playoffs, anything can happen. Long-term, we're in the same spot as Brissett.

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

But signing a washed up FA QB is like putting a band aid on a leg that has been sheered off. Ain’t gonna do a thing long term

The drafted QB is for long term.   A "washed up FA QB" is for short term.   Just a bridge that is more solid than Brissett.   

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

The drafted QB is for long term.   A "washed up FA QB" is for short term.   Just a bridge that is more solid than Brissett.   

And the prospects this draft SUCK

[hoosierhawk]

Just now, csmopar said:

And the prospects this draft SUCK

Says who? Not the draft gurus. maybe not extremely deep but far from sucks.

[ClaytonColt]

How has a thread which is obviously and specifically about the offensive line become yet another thread about the QB??

[MPStack]

1 minute ago, ClaytonColt said:

How has a thread which is obviously and specifically about the offensive line become yet another thread about the QB??

Shot in the dark, release time from the snap?

[CoachSmok3]

3 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

How has a thread which is obviously and specifically about the offensive line become yet another thread about the QB??

 

Trolls. Ignorance. And ignorantly feeding trolls... Its not even fun/funny anymore. 

[Four2itus]

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Brissett is literally the worst starter in the league.

This is literally the worst post I have seen. Seriously, though.....do numbers back that up?

[Yoshinator]

6 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

This is literally the worst post I have seen. Seriously, though.....do numbers back that up?

Except you tried to copy one part of a sentence which you broke up to try and make me look bad. Next time, copy the whole post and put that part in bold.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i disagree, especially for the long term

He’s not talking long term.   He’s only talking about next year.   A rookie is likely NOT going to be better next year.  They will need a redshirt year to sit, watch and learn. 
 

[NewColtsFan]

25 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

How has a thread which is obviously and specifically about the offensive line become yet another thread about the QB??

Because the play if both us inter-connected.   They go hand in hand. 

[Four2itus]

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Literally the only thing any QB can do worse than Brissett is throw INT's. Without that, Brissett is literally the worst starter in the league. If we draft a first-round rookie, you 100% start him without thinking twice about it.

There. Still a take that is not based in reality

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/passing.htm

 

You might consider a less extreme approach to judging JB. Don't like him? Fine. But there are quite a few fans here painting him with the same negative brush....as if they say it enough, then it's true. 

[NewColtsFan]

42 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Would you rather waste another year with Brissett knowing we won't make the playoffs and accomplish nothing, or start the rookie and miss the playoffs, but get him experience and development? Brissett offers nothing to teach the rookie. His potential is very low at the moment. We will have to pay our players very soon, they won't be on cheap contracts much longer. We are wasting their rookie years. We need to get the QB situation settled as soon as possible.

 

 

Why didn’t KC start Pat Mahomes his rookie year?   Lamar Jackson didn’t start most of his rookie year.   How’d that work out?   

 

Starting a rookie way before they’re ready can do more harm than good.   

[hoosierhawk]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

He’s not talking long term.   He’s only talking about next year.   A rookie is likely NOT going to be better next year.  They will need a redshirt year to sit, watch and learn. 
 

By saying he is NOT LIKELY does indicate that he could be likely to be better. It is not an absolute. Not like saying 'A rookie is NOT going to be better' so there is hope, right?

[NewColtsFan]

48 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Would you rather waste another year with Brissett knowing we won't make the playoffs and accomplish nothing, or start the rookie and miss the playoffs, but get him experience and development? Brissett offers nothing to teach the rookie. His potential is very low at the moment. We will have to pay our players very soon, they won't be on cheap contracts much longer. We are wasting their rookie years. We need to get the QB situation settled as soon as possible.

 

 

Seriously?  That you even bothered to respond to Superman’s post us embarrassing.   He’s crushing you with a tidal wave of facts and all you’ve got is we have to get the new quarterback  going as soon as possible. 
 

No.   We.    Don’t. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

By saying he is NOT LIKELY does indicate that he could be likely to be better. It is not an absolute. Not like saying 'A rookie is NOT going to be better' so there is hope, right?

Now you’re deliberately trying to be argumentative.    So I’ll put it another  way.

 

Using the line from Dumb and Dumber: “So you’re saying there’s a chance?” is NOT how good teams are run.     Please..........

[Yoshinator]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Why didn’t KC start Pat Mahomes his rookie year?   Lamar Jackson didn’t start most of his rookie year.   How’d that work out?   

 

Starting a rookie way before they’re ready can do more harm than good.   

I'll give you Mahomes, he was a special case, he just needed a year. Lamar decided he needed to throw more in the offseason, which made him a duel-threat QB, which he learned he should do from his time playing his rookie year. Most QB's aren't Mahomes, and most learn from experience. We have a team-friendly offense (great o-line, solid run game). Whatever rookie we draft would be fine.

[The Fish]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'll give you Mahomes, he was a special case, he just needed a year.

 

Just a random thought here, but do we know for fact that he needed to sit or was it just a by product of playing it safe because it was easy to do with Alex Smith winning enough to let it be?

I don't know, but I'm guessing in Pat's case he could have been up and running earlier and it wouldn't have been a detriment to his development. 

[Yoshinator]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Seriously?  That you even bothered to respond to Superman’s post us embarrassing.   He’s crushing you with a tidal wave of facts and all you’ve got is we have to get the new quarterback  going as soon as possible. 
 

No.   We.    Don’t. 

Then we're essentially tanking another year, we'll have to pay the 2017 class before the rookie steps onto the field, and there will be no point watching the 2020 season. If the Colts FO doesn't care in that scenario, why should I? 

[chad72]

59 minutes ago, Myles said:

The drafted QB is for long term.   A "washed up FA QB" is for short term.   Just a bridge that is more solid than Brissett.   

 

1 or 2 kicks here and there, we go from 7 to 9 wins easily, IMO. Thus, the facts bear out that JB is solid enough. The problem is the ceiling to get from those 9 to 12 or 13 wins that I do not see in him, just my opinion of course.

 

Thus, a FA cannot be considerably solid than Brissett. If we want the ceiling, draft the high ceiling prospect and coach him up for a year.  Yes, I can see us be in the middle of the pack again with 7 to 9 wins but bringing in a vet QB may be like a band aid, I am afraid.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

 

Just a random thought here, but do we know for fact that he needed to sit or was it just a by product of playing it safe because it was easy to do with Alex Smith winning enough to let it be?

I don't know, but I'm guessing in Pat's case he could have been up and running earlier and it wouldn't have been a detriment to his development. 

I believe he played the last 4 games of his rookie season and struggled. He needed it.

[GoColts8818]

I get wanting better QB play.  Everyone wants it including Reich, Ballard, and, Irsay.  However, simply wanting someone to be better than Jacoby doesn’t automatically make alternatives better.  That’s why Jacoby was the starter all year he was the best of what the Colts had in the Colts brass eyes (whose is the only ones opinions that matter on this).  
 

I am sure the Colts will look to improve the QB play this off-season that will probably be in the form of a draft pick because I don’t think the Colts are going to view any of the QBs available as a significant upgrade over Jacoby.  The rookie is going to be drafted on what he CAN be not what he is.  So it’s very possibly that Jacoby is still the best QB on the roster at the start of the season which could lead to him starting.  Once the coaches feel the rookie has surpassed Jacoby or the season is lost they will probably make a change.  
 

One thing I think fans need to take a step back from and understand is that the Colts are not in the anyone but Jacoby mindset.  I understand fans who might feel that way but if we are trying to predict what the Colts are going to do I think we need to put personal feelings aside and not try to project what we want to happen on to what is realistically likely to happen.   

[chad72]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I believe he played the last 4 games of his rookie season and struggled. He needed it.

 

He played just the last game, 1 game of his rookie season and showed plenty of potential for Andy Reid to feel good about the off season he will have with Mahomes after the 2017 season.