Chad “Swag” Kelly

[stitches]

17 hours ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

 

Second, I think this could also confirm that we might just be in for a draft of building D-line and getting weapons. Then taking a QB in the mid rounds, maybe 3-4 range. Why do I say that, when asked about Kelly, Ballard said he had a future in the league and was a natural playmaker. I could see Ballard believing he can roll with Brissett, Kelly and Rookie. Let them battle it out in training camp and see what happens. He could view Kelly as better than any other QB that would be available to us. Could all be conspiracy, but definitely now feel that a very least Kelly will be on this roster next year unless he gets in trouble this offseason. 
 

What do y’all think?

 

guy on left No chance. Guy on right looks the part of NFL QB. 

 

 

I think it is insane to make decisions about the very top of your roster at the most important position on any team(QB) with the most valuable assets you have(1st round picks) based on the existence of Chad Kelly. I don't mind him being on the roster and I've liked what he's shown in pre-season games and I think he can be a serviceable backup in time, but you simply cannot do this. This would be so damn irresponsible and almost fireable. "You know what? I'm not gonna draft QB high because we have Chad Kelly" .... just think about it for a minute... let it settle in your mind... "we are not drafting a QB because of Chad Kelly"... How is this NOT insane? Chad Kelly shouldn't even enter into your thoughts about whether to draft a QB with 13 or not. 

[EastStreet]

23 minutes ago, ponyboy said:

Yes (some shown in Swag3), but the passes against Fresno State (Swag2) are even better.

I remember several games those years, and he had a lot of pretty passes throughout his career. I don't remember the FSt game all that well (just remember is was like the week after the big Bama win), but the Bama games really stuck out. Had some doozies vs Auburn too. I think that last year, he put up 400+ on both. Amazing what he did vs some of the best Ds in CFB. Those were some great and wacky years in the SEC.

 

I'm uber happy to see Lame Kitten and the Pirate end up in the SEC. That SECW will be gold when it comes to press conference. 

[EastStreet]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

I think it is insane to make decisions about the very top of your roster at the most important position on any team(QB) with the most valuable assets you have(1st round picks) based on the existence of Chad Kelly. I don't mind him being on the roster and I've liked what he's shown in pre-season games and I think he can be a serviceable backup in time, but you simply cannot do this. This would be so damn irresponsible and almost fireable. "You know what? I'm not gonna draft QB high because we have Chad Kelly" .... just think about it for a minute... let it settle in your mind... "we are not drafting a QB because of Chad Kelly"... How is this NOT insane? Chad Kelly shouldn't even enter into your thoughts about whether to draft a QB with 13 or not. 

At this point (only 1 year of good behavior) I would agree. I think at some point, you have to give him credit for time served. Not sure where the line in the sand is drawn though. 

 

IMO, you draft, but you also allow for a truly open competition. 

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

At this point (only 1 year of good behavior) I would agree. I think at some point, you have to give him credit for time served. Not sure where the line in the sand is drawn though. 

 

IMO, you draft, but you also allow for a truly open competition. 

Agree about the behavior, when we got him I thought for sure he'd screw up by month 3-4... He's surprised me pleasantly so far in that regard.

 

But lets not pretend that it's just about his behavior. Lets clean his slate! For the purposes of this exercise lets say that he's been model citizen throughout his whole life and has never had any problems. But he's spent 3 years on the bench behind a murderers' row of QBs like Brock Osweiler, Paxton Lynch, Case Keenum, Kevin Hogan, Jacoby Brissett and Brian Hoyer... and his coaches never once thought he was their best chance to win a game. When they needed wins to get in the playoffs they would rather play Brian Hoyer(who's lost his last 10+ games) than him. He'd be a 4th year 7th round QB who's never started a game in his NFL career. Why would anyone make plans for their starting QB position with him in mind? Let me put in other words ... imagine he wasn't on the Colts. Imagine he was the third string QB of... the Bills for example and he played some good pre-season games for them in 2019. Would anyone be like... "You know what? We don't really need Herbert or Love... what we really should do is sign that Bills third stringer... he looks like a franchise QB"... 

 

At some point he needs to show that he deserves to be taken seriously(not just because of his off-field stuff)... this is why I wanted to see him in the last 2 weeks of the season, but Reich didn't seem very interested... Oh well... not ideal, but we can only work with the information we have not with the information we wished we had. In general I'm always in favor of open competition in camp, but I don't think you can go to camp thinking he's the solution or making decisions on draft day thinking about him as a potential solution. 

 

 

[EastStreet]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

Agree about the behavior, when we got him I thought for sure he'd screw up by month 3-4... He's surprised me pleasantly so far in that regard.

 

But lets not pretend that it's just about his behavior. Lets clean his slate! For the purposes of this exercise lets say that he's been model citizen throughout his whole life and has never had any problems. But he's spent 3 years on the bench behind a murderers' row of QBs like Brock Osweiler, Paxton Lynch, Case Keenum, Kevin Hogan, Jacoby Brissett and Brian Hoyer... and his coaches never once thought he was their best chance to win a game. When they needed wins to get in the playoffs they would rather play Brian Hoyer(who's lost his last 10+ games) than him. He'd be a 4th year 7th round QB who's never started a game in his NFL career. Why would anyone make plans for their starting QB position with him in mind? Let me put in other words ... imagine he wasn't on the Colts. Imagine he was the third string QB of... the Bills for example and he played some good pre-season games for them in 2019. Would anyone be like... "You know what? We don't really need Herbert or Love... what we really should do is sign that Bills third stringer... he looks like a franchise QB"... 

 

At some point he needs to show that he deserves to be taken seriously(not just because of his off-field stuff)... this is why I wanted to see him in the last 2 weeks of the season, but Reich didn't seem very interested... Oh well... not ideal, but we can only work with the information we have not with the information we wished we had. In general I'm always in favor of open competition in camp, but I don't think you can go to camp thinking he's the solution or making decisions on draft day thinking about him as a potential solution. 

I think some of this is a bit harsh. Honestly I don't think it matters who he sat behind. In Denver, he was likely already on some sort of "probation", but still managed to win the backup roster job (2018) after spending a year (2017) on IR. He also beat out Lynch who we forget was a 1st rounder... Not saying Lynch is all that, he's not, but still it's not nothing.

 

We can't say the coaches didn't think he was the best chance to win. We can probably assume that Denver (Elway is pretty controlling) was taking a calculated risk keeping him on the roster, and simply were treating him similar to the how the Colts did in 2019. The fact he won the back up job at all after the behavioral flags and a year on IR is something I wouldn't have bet on.

 

But I do agree he should not factor into draft plans. I think it's fair to say after Ballard's comments, he's still in the earning trust phase. Like you, I wanted to see him in the last couple of games, but I also knew that was unlikely as they probably didn't want to diss JB. Putting him out there, even in a situation where JB hypothetically got hurt, would have opened up a can of worms that likely couldn't be closed lol. In short, the FO played it ultra-conservative, and that does not surprise me one bit. 

 

Whatever "plan" they have for him, I hope it's clear and finite. I got the opposite feeling listening to Ballard. It just felt like Ballard was saying, he needs to behave well, and if we ever need you, we'll let you know... I'd prefer a situation where it's clear as day, where Ballard says something like "kid, you've been a dumbxxx... you owe us two years of perfect behavior, XXX hours of service in the Indy community, substance abuse counselling, sports shrink counselling, and lots of hard work... and if you do that, you'll have a fair and open competition in year 3"... Kelly isn't in a position to complain about anything regardless of whatever conditions he's under, so who knows. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for some of those conversations though. 

[Valpo2004]

I wonder if they will have him competing against JB this season?  Ballard said he will not commit to JB starting next season.  That could obviously mean he's looking for a QB in the draft and/or free agency.  Could also mean that Kelly gets to compete.

 

It is strange that they kept him on the roster.  At the same time it makes you wonder though why they didn't give Kelly a chance when we where out of the playoffs to see what we had?  

 

My only thought on that would be pulling JB in the middle of the season even when we don't have a shot at the playoffs sends a message that undermines JB to both the team and the fan base.  Sort of a situation where if you are going to make a QB switch you better be sure because switching back is hard to do once that move has been made.  

[boo2202]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

 

I think it is insane to make decisions about the very top of your roster at the most important position on any team(QB) with the most valuable assets you have(1st round picks) based on the existence of Chad Kelly. I don't mind him being on the roster and I've liked what he's shown in pre-season games and I think he can be a serviceable backup in time, but you simply cannot do this. This would be so damn irresponsible and almost fireable. "You know what? I'm not gonna draft QB high because we have Chad Kelly" .... just think about it for a minute... let it settle in your mind... "we are not drafting a QB because of Chad Kelly"... How is this NOT insane? Chad Kelly shouldn't even enter into your thoughts about whether to draft a QB with 13 or not. 

Can I add like five more accounts, so I can say thanks five more times. This would be the definition of a dysfunctional front office.

[Valpo2004]

58 minutes ago, stitches said:

Agree about the behavior, when we got him I thought for sure he'd screw up by month 3-4... He's surprised me pleasantly so far in that regard.

 

But lets not pretend that it's just about his behavior. Lets clean his slate! For the purposes of this exercise lets say that he's been model citizen throughout his whole life and has never had any problems. But he's spent 3 years on the bench behind a murderers' row of QBs like Brock Osweiler, Paxton Lynch, Case Keenum, Kevin Hogan, Jacoby Brissett and Brian Hoyer... and his coaches never once thought he was their best chance to win a game. When they needed wins to get in the playoffs they would rather play Brian Hoyer(who's lost his last 10+ games) than him. He'd be a 4th year 7th round QB who's never started a game in his NFL career. Why would anyone make plans for their starting QB position with him in mind? Let me put in other words ... imagine he wasn't on the Colts. Imagine he was the third string QB of... the Bills for example and he played some good pre-season games for them in 2019. Would anyone be like... "You know what? We don't really need Herbert or Love... what we really should do is sign that Bills third stringer... he looks like a franchise QB"... 

 

At some point he needs to show that he deserves to be taken seriously(not just because of his off-field stuff)... this is why I wanted to see him in the last 2 weeks of the season, but Reich didn't seem very interested... Oh well... not ideal, but we can only work with the information we have not with the information we wished we had. In general I'm always in favor of open competition in camp, but I don't think you can go to camp thinking he's the solution or making decisions on draft day thinking about him as a potential solution. 

 

 

 

I don't think you can separate the decision to sit him behind those guys from his slate though.  

 

The other thing is that it's not just his legal problems which are actually relatively minor, but it was also his attitude.  From what I read he always seemed to think he was the greatest thing ever even when sitting on the bench in the NFL.  

 

Starting him could cause locker room problems (giving him a higher profile) and furthermore could make it more difficult to humble him in the future.  

 

Not saying he's the answer, in fact I think we should just assume he isn't.  But I don't think you can entirely separate the personal/maturity issues from the decision to not start him.  

 

I think his issue has not only made it harder for him to get rostered but also made it harder to get playing time.  He can look great in practice but you can still as a coach be asking yourself if you want a man-child leading your team to the line.  

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I don't think you can separate the decision to sit him behind those guys from his slate though.  

 

The other thing is that it's not just his legal problems which are actually relatively minor, but it was also his attitude.  From what I read he always seemed to think he was the greatest thing ever even when sitting on the bench in the NFL.  

 

Starting him could cause locker room problems (giving him a higher profile) and furthermore could make it more difficult to humble him in the future.  

 

Not saying he's the answer, in fact I think we should just assume he isn't.  But I don't think you can entirely separate the personal/maturity issues from the decision to not start him.  

 

That's fair... my point was more along the lines of - he hasn't shown anything in the league to deserve to be thought of as anything more than a promising backup. The reason is kind of immaterial. We don't know much of anything about how he will look in a legitimate regular season game. He's never been in such situation. On multiple levels and fronts, I think it's not wise(to say the least, I'm really underselling it here) to assume he's the answer. We should act as if he is what he's been so far in his career... and if in the future he proves he's more... then great - this is a good problem to have, but we cannot miss on QB talent in the draft or in FA(if available) because of him. 

[Valpo2004]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

That's fair... my point was more along the lines of - he hasn't shown anything in the league to deserve to be thought of as anything more than a promising backup. The reason is kind of immaterial. We don't know much of anything about how he will look in a legitimate regular season game. He's never been in such situation. On multiple levels and fronts, I think it's not wise(to say the least, I'm really underselling it here) to assume he's the answer. We should act as if he is what he's been so far in his career... and if in the future he proves he's more... then great - this is a good problem to have, but we cannot miss on QB talent in the draft or in FA(if available) because of him. 

 

I would agree, however I would also say because he is promising it is frustrating that he didn't get starts when the team was no longer in contention.  Only reason I can see for doing that is they didn't want to undermine JB for next year.  

 

But if that's the issue doesn't saying that JB is not necessarily the starter for next year sort of do the same thing.  Not that anyone would have asked but if Ballard had been asked if Luck was the starter for next year he would have gave a firm yes.  

[Archer]

19 hours ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

Okay so let’s look at Ballards comments on Chad Kelly on Dakich:  

 

Dakich: The fans really wanted Chad Kelly to get a shot. Is Kelly in any type of future plans?

 

Ballard: "Let me tell you this: he's got some natural playmaking to him. Here's my deal with Chad, because I heard the clamoring, too — my kids. I mean, they love Chad; they love Jacoby, and they love Chad. I mean, Chad had earned trust. I'm not talking about on the field — we had to trust him off the field. I mean, he had screwed up a few times to where, 'We're your last shot here, son. So you're we're gonna have some guidelines here about what you have to do, and you've gotta earn trust.' And first time we cut him, he had this look of, 'You're cutting me?' I'm like, 'Damn right I'm cuttin' you. And you're gonna go to the practice squad and you're gonna continue to work, you're gonna continue to do the things we're asking you to do.' Do I think he has a future in the league? Yes. Does he continue to have to earn trust each and every day? Yes."
 

First, so I have long felt that Kelly would not take JBs place this previous season and would gladly call out anyone who did. I feel like after hearing this, it confirmed what a lot of us thought, this year was about Kelly showing he could be a good teammate and stay in line. That was it. It was never about him actually seeing the field. 

 

Second, I think this could also confirm that we might just be in for a draft of building D-line and getting weapons. Then taking a QB in the mid rounds, maybe 3-4 range. Why do I say that, when asked about Kelly, Ballard said he had a future in the league and was a natural playmaker. I could see Ballard believing he can roll with Brissett, Kelly and Rookie. Let them battle it out in training camp and see what happens. He could view Kelly as better than any other QB that would be available to us. Could all be conspiracy, but definitely now feel that a very least Kelly will be on this roster next year unless he gets in trouble this offseason. 
 

What do y’all think?

 

guy on left No chance. Guy on right looks the part of NFL QB. 

 

This is my exact belief about the QB position this off-season.  Kelly and 3rd rounder are the future as soon as Brissett proves they are better options...

[Nesjan3]

yes all the people clamoring for a quarterback are going to be sorely disappointed when we don't draft one. We just paid Jacoby whether people like it or not. Kelly is a massive question mark and like the OP stated Ballard could very well view him as a better QB than any that might fall to us. 

 

I also don't post much but read lot's so while im here typing i just want to say,  the Mahomes and  and the Brady's of this league drafted mid-late and turn into all stars is a very rare thing. The people drafting are smart individuals who know a hell of a lot about football and for all of them to miss these guys potential is a VERY UNCOMMON thing lol, so people stop saying we need to get "our Mahomes in the mid round". Its hilarious

[TimetobringDfence!]

4 hours ago, stitches said:

 

I think it is insane to make decisions about the very top of your roster at the most important position on any team(QB) with the most valuable assets you have(1st round picks) based on the existence of Chad Kelly. I don't mind him being on the roster and I've liked what he's shown in pre-season games and I think he can be a serviceable backup in time, but you simply cannot do this. This would be so damn irresponsible and almost fireable. "You know what? I'm not gonna draft QB high because we have Chad Kelly" .... just think about it for a minute... let it settle in your mind... "we are not drafting a QB because of Chad Kelly"... How is this NOT insane? Chad Kelly shouldn't even enter into your thoughts about whether to draft a QB with 13 or not. 

I agree we need to draft a qb for competition. But grabing one at 13 is a reach. When we need DL and possibly OL where the value at 13 is better. Qb can wait.

[stitches]

22 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I agree we need to draft a qb for competition. But grabing one at 13 is a reach. When we need DL and possibly OL where the value at 13 is better. Qb can wait.

Totally. 1st round QB is a reach. iMO we should treat QB like kicker... Nothing before 6th round and preferably UDFA. We cannot risk not addressing all those other important positional needs. QB can wait...

[TimetobringDfence!]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

Totally. 1st round QB is a reach. iMO we should treat QB like kicker... Nothing before 6th round and preferably UDFA. We cannot risk not addressing all those other needs. QB can wait...

Burrow, Herbert and Tua will be gone. Love is a complete reach at 13 a fool would draft him before Brown or Kinclaw. Lots of QBs are drafted past 1st round and succeed. Wait till second and grab Eason or Gordon. Dont count Kelly out either if he stays out of trouble and balls out this off season hes earned some trust back. Ballard released info that Kelley has the skills. We all know JB is not the answer.

[MikeCurtis]

23 hours ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

I think this could also confirm that we might just be in for a draft of building D-line and getting weapons. Then taking a QB in the mid rounds, maybe 3-4 range. Why do I say that, when asked about Kelly, Ballard said he had a future in the league and was a natural playmaker. I could see Ballard believing he can roll with Brissett, Kelly and Rookie. Let them battle it out in training camp and see what happens. He could view Kelly as better than any other QB that would be available to us. Could all be conspiracy, but definitely now feel that a very least Kelly will be on this roster next year unless he gets in trouble this offseason. 

 

What do y’all think?

 

 

 

 

This is absolutely an option for the Colts

 

I would go DL/OL/WR then Gordon in round 3

 

Let the 3 QBs compete

 

If a top QB slides out to 13.....  then CK should be truly able to compete there as well JB may be the odd guy out

 

 

 

 

[CoachLite]

8 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

This is absolutely an option for the Colts

 

I would go DL/OL/WR then Gordon in round 3

 

Let the 3 QBs compete

 

 

Gordon in 2nd or 3rd would be smart. I hope Ballard doesn't overplay his "earn my trust" position with Kelly, or the fan base. I've seen these blow up, becoming a nuclear option. It's a very fine line.

[MikeCurtis]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Totally. 1st round QB is a reach. iMO we should treat QB like kicker... Nothing before 6th round and preferably UDFA. We cannot risk not addressing all those other important positional needs. QB can wait...

Lol..... sarcasm alert

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Totally. 1st round QB is a reach. iMO we should treat QB like kicker... Nothing before 6th round and preferably UDFA. We cannot risk not addressing all those other important positional needs. QB can wait...

I know you're funnin'.

 

Keep in mind most thought Mahomes was a huge reach at 10.

 

He was projected originally late 1st or early 2nd and that was after rising up the boards post combine. Trubisky and Watson were thought to be the clear 2 best by most services. If I had a penny for every time an analyst called him a "scheme" QB, I'd be a billionaire. 

[MikeCurtis]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

 

I think it is insane to make decisions about the very top of your roster at the most important position on any team(QB) with the most valuable assets you have(1st round picks) based on the existence of Chad Kelly. I don't mind him being on the roster and I've liked what he's shown in pre-season games and I think he can be a serviceable backup in time, but you simply cannot do this. This would be so damn irresponsible and almost fireable. "You know what? I'm not gonna draft QB high because we have Chad Kelly" .... just think about it for a minute... let it settle in your mind... "we are not drafting a QB because of Chad Kelly"... How is this NOT insane? Chad Kelly shouldn't even enter into your thoughts about whether to draft a QB with 13 or not. 

I think you are taking this a bit too personal

 

I don’t think anyone thinks that we should go into 2020 without an additional QB

 

If CB loves Love, he should pick him at 13....  I will cheer for his success.....

 

If Love gets picked before we pick, (my bet) I don’t want to pick a person at 13 like Fromm or Eason just to pick a QB

 

 

[Gigc]

Think I'd like to see Eason at the combine and in personal workouts.

He has first round talent.

[Kyle]

I say we trade up for Tua   

[stitches]

7 hours ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

Burrow, Herbert and Tua will be gone. Love is a complete reach at 13 a fool would draft him before Brown or Kinclaw. Lots of QBs are drafted past 1st round and succeed. Wait till second and grab Eason or Gordon. Dont count Kelly out either if he stays out of trouble and balls out this off season hes earned some trust back. Ballard released info that Kelley has the skills. We all know JB is not the answer.

That's.... one opinion. Mine is not the same. But that's OK. This is not the only option... you can also trade up if you like another QB. Or if you don't like a QB, I'm with you that drafting a blue chip prospect at another position is better option. My sarcastic response was more toward the sentiments that "QB can wait" and "add QB for competition" - no... when you don't have a franchise QB you don't just "add QB for competition" and QB cannot really wait - it becomes the absolute prime priority of your decisionmakers. You seek for your future franchise QB and you don't spare resources for it. And if you don't like any of the QBs, I would almost rather not draft a QB at all and trade for future picks when you might like a QB, than take wild shots at later round QBs. 

 

I don't think Gordon is a second rounder, I don't see the high end play with him that will translate in the league. I think this board has started overvaluing him only so they can pass on taking a QB in the 1st and be able to say "why not just draft Gordon in the 2nd-3d?" instead. The answer to which is - because he's nowhere near the prospect those other players projected to go in R1 are. 

 

And you again bring up Kelly. I cannot stress this enough - it would be irresponsible if you make any decision about your starting QB position with Chad Kelly on your mind. You shouldn't even let him enter your mind when you are at 13 and there is a QB waiting for you to take or there is a trade up available for you to make for a QB... the only question there should be do I love this QB or not and do I think he can be a franchise QB with development? 

 

 

 

[stitches]

6 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I know you're funnin'.

 

Keep in mind most thought Mahomes was a huge reach at 10.

 

He was projected originally late 1st or early 2nd and that was after rising up the boards post combine. Trubisky and Watson were thought to be the clear 2 best by most services. If I had a penny for every time an analyst called him a "scheme" QB, I'd be a billionaire. 

But that's the exact thing I'm talking about. Who cares who calls a QB a reach? You make your own evaluations. You pay your own people and you pay them millions of dollars to be right on those decisions. Trust your own evaluations and if you love a QB, go get him! There is no other need that comes close to QB in importance and in potential return on investment. Don't horse around with it. Go get the guy you like. Do you think the Chiefs care now that their QB was called a reach at draft time? 

[LockeDown]

32 minutes ago, stitches said:

But that's the exact thing I'm talking about. Who cares who calls a QB a reach? You make your own evaluations. You pay your own people and you pay them millions of dollars to be right on those decisions. Trust your own evaluations and if you love a QB, go get him! There is no other need that comes close to QB in importance and in potential return on investment. Don't horse around with it. Go get the guy you like. Do you think the Chiefs care now that their QB was called a reach at draft time? 

 Compare Kelly vs Love. Why would getting Love be the smart pick? 

[stitches]

2 hours ago, LockeDown said:

 Compare Kelly vs Love. Why would getting Love be the smart pick? 

Kelly has better consistency with accuracy, something he's improved since college.

Both have some decisionmaking headscratchers. Love is worse in this regard as it stands right now. 

Kelly has more consistent footwork. 

 

Love is more athletic and more mobile (although it's not like Kelly is immobile).

Love is bigger/taller. 

Love has MUCH better pocket presence and movement in the pocket, he navigates the pocket extremely well and creates throwing windows with subtle movement in the pocket.

Love has better playmaking potential, can throw off-platform and on the move. Doesn't get skittish in the pocket, something Kelly does. (Kelly can make some plays off-structure too, but nowhere near that level IMO)

Love has much wider variety of throws and can make them with layered levels of difficulty on top of being able to make them in clean pocket

Love has better arm strength(Kelly is too bad either).

Kelly is better with throws down the middle, Love has trouble seeing dropping linebackers and is sometimes late with throws down the middle

Love is better throwing to the boundary and the sideline. 

Love is a killer when kept clean and his receiver has separation. His decision making suffers under pressure. 

 

Kelly has laundry list of off-field concerns, attitude and maturity problems, 2 ACLs. 

Love was reportedly arrested with marijuana before his bowl game. His university and coaches stood behind him and from what I heard the charges have been dropped since. Ballard will need to do work here and find out if he truly was innocent or they just didn't have enough evidence to put him on trial.  ( https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/23/21078741/jordan-love-marijuana-charges-dropped-utah-state-usu-football-drugs-logan ) 

 

One just turned 21 a couple months ago, the other one is about to turn 26. One will be a rookie and the other one will be 4th year QB with no starts in the league. This is something I haven't seen many people mention BTW. Jordan Love is the youngest of all the QBs in this draft. He's full 2 years younger than Joe Burrow. At that same age Burrow didn't even have 300 passing yards in college football.

 

So yeah. I love Love. I think with development and cleaning up his footwork and decision-making he can be a very high level QB in the league. I don't think Chad Kelly can be that even if he didn't have all the red flags that he comes with. They are just not a similar level of prospects purely skill and traits-wise.

 

 

Look(Ballard enters the chat), I'm not blind to his faults. I bet you I've probably held my head in despair more than anyone of his critics when I've watched him play. He makes some mind-bogglingly dumb plays. I've rewinded his film for 5-10 times trying to figure out what the hell was he seeing on some of his throws to make him throw that ball and how the hell he didn't see the dropping defender. I've screamed at the screen "why the hell didn't you throw that away?" multiple times when he tries to play hero ball and squeeze a ball in double coverage on the move... His decisionmaking needs improvement, there is no two ways about it. He needs a good coach and teacher to steer him towards a more pragmatic playmaking rather than the wild chaos that at times happens now. He needs to read the dropping linebackers better. He needs work on his footwork consistency, because he gets lazy and sloppy with it every now and again and underthrows balls because of it. He will need to learn how to command the team at the LOS and make adjustments, because so far in his career he's getting everything from the sideline(but that last part is normal for most QBs coming out of college).

 

On the flip side, I just cannot ignore the talent that is there. He has very high level traits. He has NFL QB body. He has the movement and looseness to make the highest level of plays. He has amazing touch on the ball, which is not something you see from most high level arm strength players(Jacoby for example throws almost everything as a fastball). He actually varies the way he throws the ball based on coverage, depth, closing defenders, obstacles on the way, etc. He has the fastball and he uses it when he needs to but he also throws beautiful lob passes with touch and air under them over defenders when he needs to. His anticipation and timing on the throws are not the best of the class but I would consider them overall plus with potential to get even better. He shows flashes of ability to manipulate safeties and hold them in position so he can make a throw. His pocket presence is almost as good as Luck's was. Well... maybe not, but with experience and more coaching I actually think he can approach it, he's showing that much promise in this aspect. This is important for me because in the modern game defensive linemen are way too good and offensive lines have trouble keeping the pocket clean. Whoever the QB is, he will need to be able to navigate the pocket. He has a very strong arm and he can make some incredible plays on the move too. He has the rudiments of making complex progression reads, too.  

 

I don't think he will be ready year 1. If we draft him, most probably he sits year 1. (still would try to make him ready, but won't expect it) He's a high risk, high reward player. He can absolutely bust. In fact, I will give you that he's probably the highest bust potential QB in the top several rounds. But the high level of what he can be is just too much for me to ignore. In this respect this pick would be as much about Love's traits and 'potential' as it is a vote of extreme confidence in our coaching staff and their ability to develop a QB. 

[BleedBlue4Shoe86]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I think the OP for this thread was more talking about how Ballard definitely sees potential in CK and sees a role for him. What that role is, no one knows. 
 

You have to at least admit that if Ballard doesn’t draft a QB until round 3-4, That says something. That not only says he likes JB but more importantly it also says he likes the QB room a little more than what we thought. 
 

Also, not to get off track but if we don’t select Love, it most definitely says something. With all the resources we have reportedly put into scouting him (Ballard credentialed for a game, scouts at 6-7 games). 

[stitches]

12 minutes ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I think the OP for this thread was more talking about how Ballard definitely sees potential in CK and sees a role for him. What that role is, no one knows. 
 

You have to at least admit that if Ballard doesn’t draft a QB until round 3-4, That says something. That not only says he likes JB but more importantly it also says he likes the QB room a little more than what we thought. 
 

Also, not to get off track but if we don’t select Love, it most definitely says something. With all the resources we have reportedly put into scouting him (Ballard credentialed for a game, scouts at 6-7 games). 

I think Ballard sees Kelly as a low risk(i.e. can be cut anytime), low salary potential backup to be groomed. I still wonder if we would have taken Hoyer if Kelly wasn't suspended to start the year. 

 

IMO if Ballard doesn't draft a QB high it means he didn't like one of the highly rated QBs(or couldn't get into position to draft whoever he liked). I don't think it would mean much about Chad Kelly. If they truly liked Chad Kelly as much as you think they do (as much as to not draft a QB high), they would have put him in when we needed to win games... or at the very least to see what he's all about when we didn't need to win the last 2 games. 

 

About Love - yes, if Ballard has a chance to draft him at 13 and he doesn't or picks another one it certainly means something. Ballard and the Colts FO will have so much more information than we do. There still can be behind the scenes things that turn them off of Love(or any other QB) and we would never know about them or maybe they just don't think he's as good of a prospect as I do, which again is OK. Or maybe he's horrible at the whiteboard? Maybe he's a horrible teammate and leader? Maybe there are red flags we don't know about... etc. 

 

 

[Myles]

18 hours ago, ponyboy said:

Unlock the Swag

 

Be warned, if you watch these two videos, you will have 'Unlock the Swag' ear worm for days.

 

Swag 2  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9xasXnDNDo)

Swag 3  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GETkgADOmqg)

 

In that second link, they spent half the video replaying a play that didn't show much positive for Chad.   That could easily had been an interception for a TD.

 

It is pretty cool that he beat Bama twice.   How many QB's have done that in the past decade? 

[LockeDown]

4 hours ago, stitches said:

Kelly has better consistency with accuracy, something he's improved since college.

Both have some decisionmaking headscratchers. Love is worse in this regard as it stands right now. 

Kelly has more consistent footwork. 

 

Love is more athletic and more mobile (although it's not like Kelly is immobile).

Love is bigger/taller. 

Love has MUCH better pocket presence and movement in the pocket, he navigates the pocket extremely well and creates throwing windows with subtle movement in the pocket.

Love has better playmaking potential, can throw off-platform and on the move. Doesn't get skittish in the pocket, something Kelly does. (Kelly can make some plays off-structure too, but nowhere near that level IMO)

Love has much wider variety of throws and can make them with layered levels of difficulty on top of being able to make them in clean pocket

Love has better arm strength(Kelly is too bad either).

Kelly is better with throws down the middle, Love has trouble seeing dropping linebackers and is sometimes late with throws down the middle

Love is better throwing to the boundary and the sideline. 

Love is a killer when kept clean and his receiver has separation. His decision making suffers under pressure. 

 

Kelly has laundry list of off-field concerns, attitude and maturity problems, 2 ACLs. 

Love was reportedly arrested with marijuana before his bowl game. His university and coaches stood behind him and from what I heard the charges have been dropped since. Ballard will need to do work here and find out if he truly was innocent or they just didn't have enough evidence to put him on trial.  ( https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/23/21078741/jordan-love-marijuana-charges-dropped-utah-state-usu-football-drugs-logan ) 

 

One just turned 21 a couple months ago, the other one is about to turn 26. One will be a rookie and the other one will be 4th year QB with no starts in the league. This is something I haven't seen many people mention BTW. Jordan Love is the youngest of all the QBs in this draft. He's full 2 years younger than Joe Burrow. At that same age Burrow didn't even have 300 passing yards in college football.

 

So yeah. I love Love. I think with development and cleaning up his footwork and decision-making he can be a very high level QB in the league. I don't think Chad Kelly can be that even if he didn't have all the red flags that he comes with. They are just not a similar level of prospects purely skill and traits-wise.

 

 

Look(Ballard enters the chat), I'm not blind to his faults. I bet you I've probably held my head in despair more than anyone of his critics when I've watched him play. He makes some mind-bogglingly dumb plays. I've rewinded his film for 5-10 times trying to figure out what the hell was he seeing on some of his throws to make him throw that ball and how the hell he didn't see the dropping defender. I've screamed at the screen "why the hell didn't you throw that away?" multiple times when he tries to play hero ball and squeeze a ball in double coverage on the move... His decisionmaking needs improvement, there is no two ways about it. He needs a good coach and teacher to steer him towards a more pragmatic playmaking rather than the wild chaos that at times happens now. He needs to read the dropping linebackers better. He needs work on his footwork consistency, because he gets lazy and sloppy with it every now and again and underthrows balls because of it. He will need to learn how to command the team at the LOS and make adjustments, because so far in his career he's getting everything from the sideline(but that last part is normal for most QBs coming out of college).

 

On the flip side, I just cannot ignore the talent that is there. He has very high level traits. He has NFL QB body. He has the movement and looseness to make the highest level of plays. He has amazing touch on the ball, which is not something you see from most high level arm strength players(Jacoby for example throws almost everything as a fastball). He actually varies the way he throws the ball based on coverage, depth, closing defenders, obstacles on the way, etc. He has the fastball and he uses it when he needs to but he also throws beautiful lob passes with touch and air under them over defenders when he needs to. His anticipation and timing on the throws are not the best of the class but I would consider them overall plus with potential to get even better. He shows flashes of ability to manipulate safeties and hold them in position so he can make a throw. His pocket presence is almost as good as Luck's was. Well... maybe not, but with experience and more coaching I actually think he can approach it, he's showing that much promise in this aspect. This is important for me because in the modern game defensive linemen are way too good and offensive lines have trouble keeping the pocket clean. Whoever the QB is, he will need to be able to navigate the pocket. He has a very strong arm and he can make some incredible plays on the move too. He has the rudiments of making complex progression reads, too.  

 

I don't think he will be ready year 1. If we draft him, most probably he sits year 1. (still would try to make him ready, but won't expect it) He's a high risk, high reward player. He can absolutely bust. In fact, I will give you that he's probably the highest bust potential QB in the top several rounds. But the high level of what he can be is just too much for me to ignore. In this respect this pick would be as much about Love's traits and 'potential' as it is a vote of extreme confidence in our coaching staff and their ability to develop a QB. 

I just wanted to know if it was off the field bias or true evaluation. Good post. I’m not sure I agree with the athleticism part.  CK looked pretty athletic in college.

[coltsfeva]

    I just look at his play from preseason and see potential. Granted, it was preseason and maybe he wasn’t going against the best but I just hope he gets a chance to show (both on and off the field), he belongs in the NFL.

 

 

[Dingus McGirt]

The first step to the redemption of Chad Kelly...stop referring to him as "swag."

[EastStreet]

7 hours ago, stitches said:

But that's the exact thing I'm talking about. Who cares who calls a QB a reach? You make your own evaluations. You pay your own people and you pay them millions of dollars to be right on those decisions. Trust your own evaluations and if you love a QB, go get him! There is no other need that comes close to QB in importance and in potential return on investment. Don't horse around with it. Go get the guy you like. Do you think the Chiefs care now that their QB was called a reach at draft time? 

Agree 1000%. Like I said, I knew you were funnin'. I was really replying to the post you were reacting too. 

 

I'd be perfectly OK with Ballard grabbing a QB most anywhere if they have done their due diligence and think he's the guy. I don't think Love or Herbert are a reach at all at 13 based on the film I've seen, their complete bodies of work, and upside. The only QB (of the ones frequently mentioned) I really would hate to see at 13 would be Fromm, and I doubt CB and FR are even giving that second thought.

[EastStreet]

29 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

The first step to the redemption of Chad Kelly...stop referring to him as "swag."

Nah man. That's half the fun.

The first step, is him not being a dumbxxx. 

 

 

[Dingus McGirt]

6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Nah man. That's half the fun.

The first step, is him not being a dumbxxx. 

 

 

He may have already passed that test...maybe.

[EastStreet]

5 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

He may have already passed that test...maybe.

You may be right. I really hope the dude just quits booze/drugs altogether. 

That's not too much to ask for a shot at playing, not to mention the $$.

I hate wasted talent.

 

 

[aaron11]

they should give him a chance to start or cut him 

 

if hes just gong to be a career back up it would be better to find a veteran clip board holder thats more valuable on the side lines.

 

A QB room of Jacboy starting and Chad backing him up doesnt make sense imo 

 

 

[chad72]

1 hour ago, Dingus McGirt said:

The first step to the redemption of Chad Kelly...stop referring to him as "swag."

 

I remember reading this article a while ago on him and started thinking, "woah, you had to go there, huh..."

 

https://theundefeated.com/features/the-white-privilege-of-chad-kelly/

 

[SSColts]

[EastStreet]

If Indy doesn't draft a QB, and stands pat at QB for 2020, 

I hope someone rents one of these

 

and drives around LOS on game days playing "Unlock the Swag" lol...