Colts trying to move up to the top 5?

[AZColt11]

4 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

Anyone notice if you spell sportsnaut backward it spells.... “tua ns trops”.

Tua Never Sees TROPicS.

There you have it.  He won’t be drafted by miami. 

 

Quite astute.  Welp, I'm convinced!

[Shadow_Creek]

17 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, LockeDown said:

Let’s be real. You are making fun of Harrington when you really mean Luck. Smart, sensitive and is looking at old architecture as we speak. 

Luck was very good in the NFL, Harrington sucked.

[WifiGuy]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

Agree with this strategy. If we don’t have to trade up for love, that’s how we should draft. 

Here’s the problem 

 

you sign Rivers and draft Love.   Rivers comes in and has a Manning to Denver type of season.   Then what?   You make Love sit another yr?     Or Rivers comes in and we win the division.  Lose  2nd rd of playoffs  

Do you keep sitting Love?

 

If Ballard brings in a FA QB it is not to groom his replacement.  It is to win now. And to do that it means surrounding him with weapons like a WR a better less fragile RB and build the Defensive line 

 

Someone is going to bring up the Chiefs and Mahomes.   Yea he was drafted as the replacement for a vet on the last yr of his contract    If we are going that route might as well just keep JB. The Scenarios would be the same and a lot less expensive. 
 

Y’all are acting like if we sign Rivers we’re just going through the motions of the season to prepare one player for the following yr or 2 

 

I actually hope either Tannehill Carr or Foles becomes available.    Take one and don’t look back

 

 

My choice would be to trade 13 to Detroit for Stafford 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The chances of moving up are so slim. Detroit and the Giants are not going to want to move clear down to 13. Giants wouldn’t get Simmons or their OT. Detroit might not get their corner. Colts are in such a bad spot to move up that far. They might be able to get ahead of Oakland though. Panthers, jet, Arizona would all b good trade partners and I think we should be able to get love or Herbert there. Still won’t be shocked if chargers take Love instead of Herbert.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

18 minutes ago, WifiGuy said:

Here’s the problem 

 

you sign Rivers and draft Love.   Rivers comes in and has a Manning to Denver type of season.   Then what?   You make Love sit another yr?     Or Rivers comes in and we win the division.  Lose  2nd rd of playoffs  

Do you keep sitting Love?

 

If Ballard brings in a FA QB it is not to groom his replacement.  It is to win now. And to do that it means surrounding him with weapons like a WR a better less fragile RB and build the Defensive line 

 

Someone is going to bring up the Chiefs and Mahomes.   Yea he was drafted as the replacement for a vet on the last yr of his contract    If we are going that route might as well just keep JB. The Scenarios would be the same and a lot less expensive. 
 

Y’all are acting like if we sign Rivers we’re just going through the motions of the season to prepare one player for the following yr or 2 

 

I actually hope either Tannehill Carr or Foles becomes available.    Take one and don’t look back

 

 

My choice would be to trade 13 to Detroit for Stafford 

 

It won’t be that hard of a decision to let Rivers go if they think Love is ready after a year.  Rivers would probably be told that they plan on drafting a QB for the future before he signs and they want him to be a mentor. 

[DougDew]

@hoosierhawk and @KB, the point of my post is that there is another thread that says that our WR group gets as much separation as nearly any group in the NFL, measured by yards.  

 

That means because of either talent at WR position or scheme, we don't need a QB to throw the ball into tight windows.  Separation by big yards means there are not many tight window throws.

 

It speaks to the idea that we need an accurate thrower more than a thrower who has zip and velocity.  Usually only the former style QBs require a trade up to get.

 

So it would be a waste to give up draft picks to get talent in a QB that we don't need, where we would be better off to get more talent at those receiver positions to take the ball to the house after they receive the ball with separation.

 

And at the end of the day, Philly won a SB with Foles.

 

I don't think that I can explain it more clearly than that.

 

If the trade into the top 5 is for another player than a QB, that is a different discussion.

[WifiGuy]

1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

It won’t be that hard of a decision to let Rivers go if they think Love is ready after a year.  Rivers would probably be told that they plan on drafting a QB for the future before he signs and they want him to be a mentor. 

Rivers would be licking his chops over that sweet deal.  Hey Phil.  Come in and sign a 2 yr deal and teach the new guy how to do your job so we can cut you.   
I bet that’s the same sweet deal that Brady is getting too   Probably how they got Manning to Denver 

 

 

again.  Might as well let JB do that.   What’s the difference?

[Defjamz26]

26 minutes ago, WifiGuy said:

Here’s the problem 

 

you sign Rivers and draft Love.   Rivers comes in and has a Manning to Denver type of season.   Then what?   You make Love sit another yr?     Or Rivers comes in and we win the division.  Lose  2nd rd of playoffs  

Do you keep sitting Love?

 

If Ballard brings in a FA QB it is not to groom his replacement.  It is to win now. And to do that it means surrounding him with weapons like a WR a better less fragile RB and build the Defensive line 

 

Someone is going to bring up the Chiefs and Mahomes.   Yea he was drafted as the replacement for a vet on the last yr of his contract    If we are going that route might as well just keep JB. The Scenarios would be the same and a lot less expensive. 
 

Y’all are acting like if we sign Rivers we’re just going through the motions of the season to prepare one player for the following yr or 2 

 

I actually hope either Tannehill Carr or Foles becomes available.    Take one and don’t look back

 

 

My choice would be to trade 13 to Detroit for Stafford 

 

You stay the course until something makes you change course. If Rivers is good then you start him until his deal runs out. If Rivers has to miss a game for some reason and Loves plays outstanding in his stead, then you make a change. I think you’re overthinking it just a tad.

[EastStreet]

47 minutes ago, WifiGuy said:

Here’s the problem 

 

you sign Rivers and draft Love.   Rivers comes in and has a Manning to Denver type of season.   Then what?   You make Love sit another yr?     Or Rivers comes in and we win the division.  Lose  2nd rd of playoffs  

Do you keep sitting Love?

 

If Ballard brings in a FA QB it is not to groom his replacement.  It is to win now. And to do that it means surrounding him with weapons like a WR a better less fragile RB and build the Defensive line 

 

Someone is going to bring up the Chiefs and Mahomes.   Yea he was drafted as the replacement for a vet on the last yr of his contract    If we are going that route might as well just keep JB. The Scenarios would be the same and a lot less expensive. 
 

Y’all are acting like if we sign Rivers we’re just going through the motions of the season to prepare one player for the following yr or 2 

 

I actually hope either Tannehill Carr or Foles becomes available.    Take one and don’t look back

 

 

My choice would be to trade 13 to Detroit for Stafford 

 

Rivers has said he wants to play 2 years tops. Him playing good for 2 years and Love sitting is not a big deal at all. And why would anyone want him to go through the motions? I'd want him to come in and ball out. 

 

In short, if he's looking for a 2 year stint with a solid team with a better OL before he rides off into the sunset, AND we are looking for a good bridge/mentor, that can also win now, but has put a clock on himself.......... it's a perfect fit... Where's the problem?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

29 minutes ago, WifiGuy said:

Rivers would be licking his chops over that sweet deal.  Hey Phil.  Come in and sign a 2 yr deal and teach the new guy how to do your job so we can cut you.   
I bet that’s the same sweet deal that Brady is getting too   Probably how they got Manning to Denver 

 

 

again.  Might as well let JB do that.   What’s the difference?

Rivers already said he might only play one more year. He is 38 not 28.

 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

8 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Rivers has said he wants to play 2 years tops. Him playing good for 2 years and Love sitting is not a big deal at all. And why would anyone want him to go through the motions? I'd want him to come in and ball out. 

 

In short, if he's looking for a 2 year stint with a solid team with a better OL before he rides off into the sunset, AND we are looking for a good bridge/mentor, that can also win now, but has put a clock on himself.......... it's a perfect fit... Where's the problem?

Personally I would not want Love to sit more then a year. Just a guess but I bet he only plays one more year.

[KB]

48 minutes ago, DougDew said:

@hoosierhawk and @KB, the point of my post is that there is another thread that says that our WR group gets as much separation as nearly any group in the NFL, measured by yards.  

 

That means because of either talent at WR position or scheme, we don't need a QB to throw the ball into tight windows.  Separation by big yards means there are not many tight window throws.

 

It speaks to the idea that we need an accurate thrower more than a thrower who has zip and velocity.  Usually only the former style QBs require a trade up to get.

 

So it would be a waste to give up draft picks to get talent in a QB that we don't need, where we would be better off to get more talent at those receiver positions to take the ball to the house after they receive the ball with separation.

 

And at the end of the day, Philly won a SB with Foles.

 

I don't think that I can explain it more clearly than that.

 

If the trade into the top 5 is for another player than a QB, that is a different discussion.

I would say if they're getting separation then the WR position is ok. What would be needed is better field awareness from the QB. Yes, receivers were overthrown, but alot wernt even noticed because Jacoby would hyper focus on his first read. 

 

What we would need better wide receivers for is if they're getting separation and then dropping the pass. That was one of the bigger concerns with our wide reciever corp last offseason.

[EastStreet]

17 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Personally I would not want Love to sit more then a year. Just a guess but I bet he only plays one more year.

Wouldn't matter to me. If Rivers is balling out, I'd be happy. If Love is playing better and overtakes Rivers, I'd be happy. At minimum there would be increased hope for this year, and long term hope for years to come.

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, KB said:

I would say if they're getting separation then the WR position is ok. What would be needed is better field awareness from the QB. Yes, receivers were overthrown, but alot wernt even noticed because Jacoby would hyper focus on his first read. 

 

What we would need better wide receivers for is if they're getting separation and then dropping the pass. That was one of the bigger concerns with our wide reciever corp last offseason.

Is there anybody saying that JB is the answer?  I think the forum as a whole has moved on to who the next QB will be.

 

I keep coming back to the reason we hired Reich and McDaniels before him, to put some of the pressure back on the OC for offensive success and take it off of the QB.  I think that's precisely why our WRs are "okay".  But getting the ball or not, Rogers, Inman, and Pascal are not going to score many TDs on their own. 

 

The QB can only get the WRs the ball.  His job is done after that.

 

How many more TDs would we have had last year if it was Case Keenum throwing to Tyler Lockett with that kind of separation? 

[KB]

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Is there anybody saying that JB is the answer?  I think the forum as a whole has moved on to who the next QB will be.

 

I keep coming back to the reason we hired Reich and McDaniels before him, to put some of the pressure back on the OC for offensive success and take it off of the QB.  I think that's precisely why our WRs are "okay".  But getting the ball or not, Rogers, Inman, and Pascal are not going to score many TDs on their own. 

 

The QB can only get the WRs the ball.  His job is done after that.

 

How many more TDs would we have had last year if it was Case Keenum throwing to Tyler Lockett with that kind of separation? 

I dont see the correlation between my response and yours. Honestly most of your response dosnt make much sense. It's why I left a confused react on your original post. When you came at me and Hoosierhawk, that response seemed like a well thought out opinion. The first and third, not so much. 

 

Who said Jb was the answer? My response gave more blame to the qb than the wr. How would hiring Reich or McDaniels put more pressure on offensive coordinators? They're offensive minded coaches, which would but more pressure on the defensive coordinator. Sirianis load is a little lighter having Reich as a coach I presume. Where did Case Keenam and Tyler Lockett come into the conversation?

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, KB said:

I dont see the correlation between my response and yours. Honestly most of your response dosnt make much sense. It's why I left a confused react on your original post. When you came at me and Hoosierhawk, that response seemed like a well thought out opinion. The first and third, not so much. 

 

Who said Jb was the answer? My response gave more blame to the qb than the wr. How would hiring Reich or McDaniels put more pressure on offensive coordinators? They're offensive minded coaches, which would but more pressure on the defensive coordinator. Sirianis load is a little lighter having Reich as a coach I presume. Where did Case Keenam and Tyler Lockett come into the conversation?

Its not just about awareness but also about accuracy.  When we hire an OC that provides schemes that creates separation, it takes the pressure off of a Qb like Luck to make great throws.  

 

IMO, if you want to strap the O on the back of the QB, then you need a top 5 talent.  I don't necessarily think that's where Ballard is headed with his QB.  

[KB]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Its not just about awareness but also about accuracy.  When we hire an OC that provides schemes that creates separation, it takes the pressure off of a Qb like Luck to make great throws.  

 

IMO, if you want to strap the O on the back of the QB, then you need a top 5 talent.  I don't necessarily think that's where Ballard is headed with his QB.  

The scheme isnt Siriani's tho. Its Reich's. That is why I said having an offensive minded coach puts more pressure on the D coordinator. That is Eberfluses scheme, and his responsibility to make sure it works. 

 

I agree it's a combination of both accuracy and awareness, but I dont think you need a top 5 talent to have both. IMO what makes a top 5 talent is the clutch gene, along with a mixture of other traits. Being clutch is the top priority though.

[WifiGuy]

3 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Rivers has said he wants to play 2 years tops. Him playing good for 2 years and Love sitting is not a big deal at all. And why would anyone want him to go through the motions? I'd want him to come in and ball out. 

 

In short, if he's looking for a 2 year stint with a solid team with a better OL before he rides off into the sunset, AND we are looking for a good bridge/mentor, that can also win now, but has put a clock on himself.......... it's a perfect fit... Where's the problem?

So Again,    What is the rush to get a QB this yr if Rivers is going to play 1-2 years anyway?

 

We have other needs and there are better players available that would make this team better right now.

[Indeee]

And then there is this:

 

Word of the street is that the Colts have shown the most interest of any other team in the QB from FIU, Morgan. It's on Bleacher Report right now, one of the Colts insiders put it out. Funny thing is that when I was watching the combine, other than the guys I knew, this Morgan guy wasn't bad. His throws seemed pretty accurate and his arm strength not that bad. This guy is definitely not projected until 4th or later. Anyway, there ya go, another rumor for what it's worth. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

By the way I like Joey Harrington as a person and have nothing against people that play piano. I wish I could play piano, I just mock at how bad of a QB he was and through the piano thing in there for the fun of it because he played a mean piano.

[AZColt11]

I just think there is so much talent in the top 13 picks there is no real good reason to waste draft picks to move up.  You're gonna get a good one at 13.

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

I just think there is so much talent in the top 13 picks there is no real good reason to waste draft picks to move up.  You're gonna get a good one at 13.

In reality none of us know what Ballard will do come draft day but it is fun to predict and speculate to what he may do. For all we know he may take a LT even though AC is coming back.

[AZColt11]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

In reality none of us know what Ballard will do come draft day but it is fun to predict and speculate to what he may do. For all we know he may take LT even though AC is coming back.

Hey you never know and there are some good ones.  I would be OK with it as long as they are one of the best available on the board.  I just think Ballard is more toward the conservative side and as much as some here would want to see it I find it hard to believe that he would actually move up like that for a maybe/could be QB.  I do think he would be more inclined to trade for a vet who has proven himself on the field already, but they won't cost as much draft capital.  But who knows?

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

In reality none of us know what Ballard will do come draft day but it is fun to predict and speculate to what he may do. For all we know he may take a LT even though AC is coming back.

That is why I don't try to predict what Ballard will do. I highly doubt he knows what he is going to do at this point. There are way too many factors that is going to happen between now and the Colts 13th pick. 

Both of us have been around long enough to know the fan base nor the media knows what is going to happen. 

I guess if there are enough guesses someone may be close somewhere

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, AZColt11 said:

Hey you never know and there are some good ones.  I would be OK with it as long as they are one of the best available on the board.  I just think Ballard is more toward the conservative side and as much as some here would want to see it I find it hard to believe that he would actually move up like that for a maybe/could be QB.  I do think he would be more inclined to trade for a vet who has proven himself on the field already, but they won't cost as much draft capital.  But who knows?

I think if he took a LT at 13 most of this forum would implode  . He could though. We need another QB but Free Agency may be the way to go there, we need a DT and WR as well.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

That is why I don't try to predict what Ballard will do. I highly doubt he knows what he is going to do at this point. There are way too many factors that is going to happen between now and the Colts 13th pick. 

Both of us have been around long enough to know the fan base nor the media knows what is going to happen. 

I guess if there are enough guesses someone may be close somewhere

Yeah I agree, trying to predict what Ballard will do is almost impossible.

[AZColt11]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think if he took a LT at 13 most of this forum would implode  . He could though. We need another QB but Free Agency may be the way to go there, we need a DT and WR as well.

Yeah I don't think it's as likely as it would have been if AC had not come back.  I would think one of either DT, DE, WR, or QB would be the pick at 13.  Now watch him fool everybody and get a CB at 13!

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, AZColt11 said:

Yeah I don't think it's as likely as it would have been if AC had not come back.  I would think one of either DT, DE, WR, or CB would be the pick at 13.  Now watch him fool everybody and get a CB at 13!

Or a TE even.

[AZColt11]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Or a TE even.

Of course all of this will probably completely change in a couple of weeks after we see who they sign or trade for.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, AZColt11 said:

Of course all of this will probably completely change in a couple of weeks after we see who they sign or trade for.

Yeah I like the fact Free agency is before the draft, in the NBA the Draft is before Free Agency. The NFL has it right IMO. If we sign a Free Agent QB or trade for one, that could change a lot regarding who we take at 13.

[Coltsman1788]

9 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

The wind can also blow that smoke up one’s ......

Only if your caught with your pants down.  

[jimmy g]

21 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

It's risky and can make or break your franchise 

 

Make: Chiefs trading up for Mahomes 

Break: Bears trading up for Trubisky

Break: Colts trading All Pro Tackle Chris Hinton, Starting WR Andre Rison, and two draft picks for the chance to take Jeff George as First Pick.

[jimmy g]

54 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think if he took a LT at 13 most of this forum would implode  . He could though. We need another QB but Free Agency may be the way to go there, we need a DT and WR as well.

If Iowa’s Tristin Wirfs is available, I want him to be a Colt!  I’d take him at number 1.  We had one of the Best OLines in the AFC last year, but were constantly one play from having to use Haag, Andrews, and LaRaven Clark!  Draft Wirfs, put him at RT now, move Smith to RG.  When AC retires, Wirfs is supposedly even better as LT.  He’s a clone of Q. 6’5”/ 322, and one of College football’s strongest players. Ran a 4.86 40. Was a wrestler, shot putter, and discus thrower.  The man is a Beast!

[DownHillRunner]

10 hours ago, LockeDown said:

If Tua is healthy he will prove he’s better than Love. 

 

 

The key word in that sentence is if. I have no doubt Tua will be healthy by camp but his injuries are concern of mine. Herbert is the best Quarterback not named Burrow you don't have to take a risk on and he can start right away. Love may have to sit a year or two until he is ready. 

 

The only way I see Ballard drafting Love if he's planning to sign or trade for a veteran Quarterback for a two year window. Rivers, Brady, Dalton, or Carr. 

[MikeCurtis]

10 hours ago, LockeDown said:

If Tua is healthy he will prove he’s better than Love. 

If Healthy Tua is a mile ahead of Love

 

if an excellent OT is available at 13..... he would be a great choice

 

LT, DE and QB are the hardest to find......

 

I don’t see a blue chip DE at 13

 

I don’t see a blue chip QB at 13

 

If a blue chip OT is available.......  you have to grab them

 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

30 minutes ago, jimmy g said:

If Iowa’s Tristin Wirfs is available, I want him to be a Colt!  I’d take him at number 1.  We had one of the Best OLines in the AFC last year, but were constantly one play from having to use Haag, Andrews, and LaRaven Clark!  Draft Wirfs, put him at RT now, move Smith to RG.  When AC retires, Wirfs is supposedly even better as LT.  He’s a clone of Q. 6’5”/ 322, and one of College football’s strongest players. Ran a 4.86 40. Was a wrestler, shot putter, and discus thrower.  The man is a Beast!

This would be a perfect plan if we already had our future QB. But we don’t.

[#12.]

On 2/29/2020 at 10:55 PM, coltsfanatic24 said:

I would be all for moving up to get Herbert but Ballard doesn’t seem like the type of GM that would trade up. It could ultimately be his downfall as a GM. 

 

Remember, Irsay and Frank both said the three have equal say in who the next QB is.  Frank was pretty emphatic about it.  

[DougDew]

5 hours ago, #12. said:

 

Remember, Irsay and Frank both said the three have equal say in who the next QB is.  Frank was pretty emphatic about it.  

Yeah, that's typically the way major decisions work. 

 

The idea that if Ballard trades up for a Qb who busts means that his job is on the line, that's the stuff the media and fans typically think.  Extreme drama.  All or nothing.  All decisions laid on the GM.  It simply doesn't work that way, at least probably with Irsay who is an owner that has been in the NFL his entire life.

[stitches]

According to Trevor Sikkema from The Draft Network teams are not as high on Tua as media seems to be. He just released a 3 round mock and he gives us Tua at 13.