A Day Later

[NewEra]

Getting a "shot" is just not on the field. What are you doing off the field? Film room, weight room, are you continuing to try to develops to be the best you can be? Or are you partying it up and trying to let your talent squeeze you by. All this is what the Colts look at and will be looking at. Character will take you further than talent. 

[Myles]

11 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Getting a "shot" is just not on the field. What are you doing off the field? Film room, weight room, are you continuing to try to develops to be the best you can be? Or are you partying it up and trying to let your talent squeeze you by. All this is what the Colts look at and will be looking at. Character will take you further than talent. 

To a fault many times with the Colts.  

[Coffeedrinker]

58 minutes ago, Myles said:

I mostly agreed with you post, but not totally with this part.    Only because both Eason and Kelly played in the SEC for some time.   That at least gives us a little bit good info for comparison.   

 

I meant as far as off the field issues.

[Jdubu]

2 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

, I see, you base it ona few meaningless plays in the preseason and the fact that he was paid more than the minimum for a PS player.  Forgive me, I did not know you had so much insider information.  And the team may be higher on him than some forum members, but so what.  They are obviously not that high on him because they spent a 4th round draft pick to compete with him.

Personally, I don't care what Kelly may have done in college, I do't care what he may have done with Denver.  The fact is, coming out of college he was considered a 5-7th round talent and his off the field issues pushed him to the 7th round.  It's not like he was a first round talent with off the field issues.  And the little I saw in the preseason last year was he had a nice run, he threw some good balls but he also was late on several throws, inaccurate on several through and poor placement on throws that he got away with against 3rd stringers but would not get away against starters and primary backups.  In short he still has work to do as a QB.  

Normally, you are better than this Coffee, your sarcastic tone isn’t really like you from most posts made but perhaps you haven’t had your coffee today yet idk. 
 

im starting to see the trend of two camps, if you like him, you’ll defend the kid. If you don’t like him, you’ll attack others and tell them what *s they are for their opinions. It’s become a can’t see the Forrest for the trees mentality. 
 

i have zero input from sources inside the team as anyone else posting on an Internet forum. My opinion is based off of what I’ve seen and feel and what I’ve interpreted the team thinks of CK. If they cut CK tomorrow, you will not see me coming into this forum and screaming they’ve cut the next Joe Montana however, I would bet there will be a thread titled “I told you so”. 
 

So, while I’ve enjoyed many of your posts over several years and have had decent discussions as well here, there is no need for you to reply with such sarcastic, jerk like tones if someone likes a player or sees them differently than you do. It’s disappointing to see some of the snide remarks over this subject from so many. 

[Jdubu]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

After thinking about the draft for a day or 2, I like what the Colts did.  Getting Buckner was huge and I think it will pay off.  I do wish they would have drafted some more D-line help.   I'm not high on Windsor.  

Taylor was unexpected, but should help out this year and going forward.  

I initially didn’t like the trade for our 13th pick but hey, if he solidified that spot and makes the backend stronger because of his push and getting after the QB, it is well worth it. As for wanting more Dline help, I think we have more than adequate help there compared to the Oline, which I would have liked to see an OT taken in the 3rd instead of a S that has injury related concerns. Right now, there is nobody we have on the team to be the swing OT guy and if AC misses any time for anything this year, who will take the reps? Clark 

[Stephen]

3 hours ago, Indeee said:

For the record I said QBs with mobility in general, not any classification between highly or moderately mobile. Meaning the ability to either run for yards or move to escape pressure extend plays. All the teams I lumped together have QBs who can do that. Eason cannot. This isn't speculation its fact. It's why one of his biggest knocks is terrible under pressure, takes too many sacks as his awareness and moving in the pocket to extend plays is highly questionable to date or virtually non existent, hence why he is viewed as a statuesque QB mold. Kelly can move thus he is Mobile and was evident in extending plays during his college/preseason action. That was my point here. Our oline, though it might be able to truly give a guy like Eason time to throw from clean pockets, if it breaks down, Eason is not the guy to adjust to that in his current state of Quarterbacking at any level and if you believe that's going to be coached or dramatically change as he matures, you are wrong. If you dont mind that, fine, but the NFL landscape is going away from that type of QB when able to. 

I've seen eason roll out to evade pressure  and make a throw down the field. He doesn't  have to be like Mahomes  or wilson to be successful. As as he puts in the work he can become  much better  than he currently is.

[Coffeedrinker]

28 minutes ago, Jdubu said:

Normally, you are better than this Coffee, your sarcastic tone isn’t really like you from most posts made but perhaps you haven’t had your coffee today yet idk. 

I guess you really haven't read many of my posts.  Sarcastic tones are pretty standard for me, I must be slipping if people are starting to think I DON'T do that.  Glad to see it came through this time.

Quote

 

im starting to see the trend of two camps, if you like him, you’ll defend the kid. If you don’t like him, you’ll attack others and tell them what *s they are for their opinions. It’s become a can’t see the Forrest for the trees mentality. 

If you say so.  I'm not attacking you at all and I like Kelly more than I like JB, personally, so I'm not sure which camp I fall into.  Nor am I a fan of Eason, I think he's the perfect QB from the neck down, it's what is above his neck that I think is not NFL worthy.  But I'm also not going to claim I've seen enough to know to know that he will not succeed in the NFL.   Wwhen I see a comment like, "I've seen enough of him to think he should be given a chance to lead the team..."  I have to respond, because you have seen what you have seen, but you have not seen anywhere near enough to conclude whether or not someone is ready to lead the team.  And that is the only issue I have had with anything you posted, ever as far as I can remember but specifically in this thread.

Quote

i have zero input from sources inside the team as anyone else posting on an Internet forum. My opinion is based off of what I’ve seen and feel and what I’ve interpreted the team thinks of CK. If they cut CK tomorrow, you will not see me coming into this forum and screaming they’ve cut the next Joe Montana however, I would bet there will be a thread titled “I told you so”. 

I'm sure you are correct on both counts.  Although I do not do, "I told you so threads."  Since I am wrong in my assessments most of the time, I would leave myself too wide open.

Quote

So, while I’ve enjoyed many of your posts over several years and have had decent discussions as well here, there is no need for you to reply with such sarcastic, jerk like tones if someone likes a player or sees them differently than you do. It’s disappointing to see some of the snide remarks over this subject from so many. 

Again you are not getting it.  My sarcastic, jerk like tones are not because you like Chad Kelly as a QB, they are 100% directed at the comment that you have seen enough that you think he should have a shot at leading the team, when you have seen less than 10% of what is needed to see to even base an opinion of if Kelly is ready to lead the team.

[Indeee]

13 minutes ago, Stephen said:

I've seen eason roll out to evade pressure  and make a throw down the field. He doesn't  have to be like Mahomes  or wilson to be successful. As as he puts in the work he can become  much better  than he currently is.

What I find absolutely hilarious about all of this is that fans like yourself have been jumping on the flavor of the offseason QB being discussed for a potential Colts selection, including Love. Amongst other things, Love appealed to so many based on his Mahomes comparisons of which you were intrigued by as well, but now that Love is a Packer and Eason is a Colt, it's okay if Eason doesn't have to be MaHomes-like. I don't care personally who you like as a QB, THIS THREAD was NOT a popularity contest, it was about a QB the Colts already have not being afforded a real opportunity to play against #1 talent and you along with many others are defending the pick of Eason, which has nothing to do with the original post. I realize that I AM the one who classified Eason that prompted your response and I take responsibility for that as I should not have allowed myself to veer off my own topic. In truth, I think Eason is a QB that is similar to Nate Sudfeld. If he turns out to be a superstud, I will admit I'm wrong, but that is not what this thread is about. It's trying to get people to see that Kelly has not gotten a fair shot and that we should not write him off until we see what he can do against higher talent competition.

[Stephen]

19 minutes ago, Indeee said:

What I find absolutely hilarious about all of this is that fans like yourself have been jumping on the flavor of the offseason QB being discussed for a potential Colts selection, including Love. Amongst other things, Love appealed to so many based on his Mahomes comparisons of which you were intrigued by as well, but now that Love is a Packer and Eason is a Colt, it's okay if Eason doesn't have to be MaHomes-like. I don't care personally who you like as a QB, THIS THREAD was NOT a popularity contest, it was about a QB the Colts already have not being afforded a real opportunity to play against #1 talent and you along with many others are defending the pick of Eason, which has nothing to do with the original post. I realize that I AM the one who classified Eason that prompted your response and I take responsibility for that as I should not have allowed myself to veer off my own topic. In truth, I think Eason is a QB that is similar to Nate Sudfeld. If he turns out to be a superstud, I will admit I'm wrong, but that is not what this thread is about. It's trying to get people to see that Kelly has not gotten a fair shot and that we should not write him off until we see what he can do against higher talent competition.

Kelly has not earned a shot that's  why he hasn't  gotten  one. He isn't  good. This preseason there will be no need to play  rivers or Brissett.  Start kelly versus first string so you can finally  see what other gms know.

[Myles]

7 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Kelly has not earned a shot that's  why he hasn't  gotten  one. He isn't  good. This preseason there will be no need to play  rivers or Brissett.  Start kelly versus first string so you can finally  see what other gms know.

The same could be said of Eason at this time too.  Hundreds of QB's in the NFL actually.    

[Indeee]

6 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Kelly has not earned a shot that's  why he hasn't  gotten  one. He isn't  good. This preseason there will be no need to play  rivers or Brissett.  Start kelly versus first string so you can finally  see what other gms know.

You my friend are wrong. Kelly did not get his shot based on this:

 

1) Brissett given a FULL season to be the future. Call it seniority, call it based on how much the organization hyped this guy, call it a locker room likeability/locker room leader, call it what you will, but it was a decision made by the brass behind the scenes once Luck retired where barring a season ending injury, Brissett was going to start an entire season without a controversy of being replaced regardless of performance.

 

2) Hoyers monetary contract. Say what you will, however there was no way Kelly was going to take over the back-up role from a guy who was paid 9mil. That is a fact, regardless of whether Kelly outplayed Hoyer.

 

Kelly's lack of a shot last year was not talent or lack thereof or based on what the coaches saw. The above I mentioned is common sensible fact to what happened in Indy last year, especially considering Kelly wasn't afforded the opportunity to play in two final meaningless season games. Again, you either have a personal agenda against Kelly or you aren't stepping back and using a  common sense big picture approach here.

[PrincetonTiger]

[MPStack]

[CheezyColt]

6 minutes ago, Indeee said:

You my friend are wrong. Kelly did not get his shot based on this:

 

1) Brissett given a FULL season to be the future. Call it seniority, call it based on how much the organization hyped this guy, call it a locker room likeability/locker room leader, call it what you will, but it was a decision made by the brass behind the scenes once Luck retired where barring a season ending injury, Brissett was going to start an entire season without a controversy of being replaced regardless of performance.

 

2) Hoyers monetary contract. Say what you will, however there was no way Kelly was going to take over the back-up role from a guy who was paid 9mil. That is a fact, regardless of whether Kelly outplayed Hoyer.

 

Kelly's lack of a shot last year was not talent or lack thereof or based on what the coaches saw. The above I mentioned is common sensible fact to what happened in Indy last year, especially considering Kelly wasn't afforded the opportunity to play in two final meaningless season games. Again, you either have a personal agenda against Kelly or you aren't stepping back and using a  common sense big picture approach here.

You are framing this as some intricate screw job conspiracy to not allow Kelly to play...  and then declaring the theory as facts.  Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct and best answer, which is the Colts think/thought higher of Brisset and Hoyer than they did of Kelly.  Now Hoyer is gone and Eason is here, and per Ballard, they will compete for the #3 spot.  In your mind you've already declared that if Eason beats out Kelly that it's only because of his draft slot.  Ballard has shown that he's unafraid to cut a 4th rounder the same year he drafted them if they aren't producing what they need to to earn a spot on this team.  For some reason you seem to think that Kelly deserves to be handed a starting opportunity just because you like what he can offer.  That's not how any of this works.  If Kelly hasn't earned the shot in meetings/practice/tests/preseason, then the team isn't going to give him the shot.  It's really simple and these huge conspiracy theories and multiple threads and nonstop preaching about Chad Kelly are making you look silly.

 

There's a difference between thinking Kelly can be good if he gets a shot and stating that if he doesn't get that shot that it's everyone else's fault by intentionally burying Kelly.  I'm on record before the draft saying Eason was a QB I wanted to avoid in the draft... but we didn't.  He's now on the Colts so I'm going to root for him.  Cheer and root your heart out for Kelly during the training camp competition (y'know... if we even have a training camp).  Maybe try entertaining the possibility that Kelly has continuously shown in practice and meetings that he's not up to Jacoby's level though... at least in the minds of the decision makers.  Just a suggestion.

 

[Myles]

23 minutes ago, Indeee said:

You my friend are wrong. Kelly did not get his shot based on this:

 

1) Brissett given a FULL season to be the future. Call it seniority, call it based on how much the organization hyped this guy, call it a locker room likeability/locker room leader, call it what you will, but it was a decision made by the brass behind the scenes once Luck retired where barring a season ending injury, Brissett was going to start an entire season without a controversy of being replaced regardless of performance.

 

2) Hoyers monetary contract. Say what you will, however there was no way Kelly was going to take over the back-up role from a guy who was paid 9mil. That is a fact, regardless of whether Kelly outplayed Hoyer.

 

Kelly's lack of a shot last year was not talent or lack thereof or based on what the coaches saw. The above I mentioned is common sensible fact to what happened in Indy last year, especially considering Kelly wasn't afforded the opportunity to play in two final meaningless season games. Again, you either have a personal agenda against Kelly or you aren't stepping back and using a  common sense big picture approach here.

I'm not sure on all of what you said, but I agree with the final 2 season games last year.   i think Reich missed a chance by starting Jacoby.  Probably had to do with not wanting to hurt his feelings at the time.  Otherwise you at minimum put Kelly in for the final quarter or so of each game.  Poor coaching decision in my book.  If you have Kelly on the roster, you think there is potential.  My guess is that the potential no longer helps and Kelly is cut.  

[Indeee]

1 minute ago, CheezyColt said:

You are framing this as some intricate screw job conspiracy to not allow Kelly to play...  and then declaring the theory as facts.  Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct and best answer, which is the Colts think/thought higher of Brisset and Hoyer than they did of Kelly.  Now Hoyer is gone and Eason is here, and per Ballard, they will compete for the #3 spot.  In your mind you've already declared that if Eason beats out Kelly that it's only because of his draft slot.  Ballard has shown that he's unafraid to cut a 4th rounder the same year he drafted them if they aren't producing what they need to to earn a spot on this team.  For some reason you seem to think that Kelly deserves to be handed a starting opportunity just because you like what he can offer.  That's not how any of this works.  If Kelly hasn't earned the shot in meetings/practice/tests/preseason, then the team isn't going to give him the shot.  It's really simple and these huge conspiracy theories and multiple threads and nonstop preaching about Chad Kelly are making you look silly.

 

There's a difference between thinking Kelly can be good if he gets a shot and stating that if he doesn't get that shot that it's everyone else's fault by intentionally burying Kelly.  I'm on record before the draft saying Eason was a QB I wanted to avoid in the draft... but we didn't.  He's now on the Colts so I'm going to root for him.  Cheer and root your heart out for Kelly during the training camp competition (y'know... if we even have a training camp).  Maybe try entertaining the possibility that Kelly has continuously shown in practice and meetings that he's not up to Jacoby's level though... at least in the minds of the decision makers.  Just a suggestion.

 

Cheezy what are you talking about here? How is this a conspiracy?

 

Do you honestly believe any team in the NFL, who pays a back-up QB 9 million dollars is going to ever have a 3rd string/practice squad player unseat them without an injury? If you do, show me one NFL team where that has happened? If Hoyer was only getting 1-2 mil/ 1 year contrct than I would agree, Kelly could've easily replaced Hoyer based on earning it. But Hoyer got 3 yrs. 9mil. Come on?

 

On Brissett, do you honestly believe based on all things being equal that Hoyer or Kelly were ever going to supplant Brissett last year on anything other than a major Injury to Brissett? Exactly.

 

So what is it with this non-sense about conspiracy's? 

[Stephen]

44 minutes ago, Myles said:

The same could be said of Eason at this time too.  Hundreds of QB's in the NFL actually.    

Eason hasn't  been given anything.  Ballard  stated he'd have to earn it. Same goes for kelly as right now rivers and Brissett  are 1 and 2.

[CheezyColt]

4 minutes ago, Indeee said:

Cheezy what are you talking about here? How is this a conspiracy?

 

Do you honestly believe any team in the NFL, who pays a back-up QB 9 million dollars is going to ever have a 3rd string/practice squad player unseat them without an injury? If you do, show me one NFL team where that has happened? If Hoyer was only getting 1-2 mil/ 1 year contrct than I would agree, Kelly could've easily replaced Hoyer based on earning it. But Hoyer got 3 yrs. 9mil. Come on?

 

On Brissett, do you honestly believe based on all things being equal that Hoyer or Kelly were ever going to supplant Brissett last year on anything other than a major Injury to Brissett? Exactly.

 

So what is it with this non-sense about conspiracy's? 

They gave Hoyer and Brisset that much money despite already having Kelly on the roster, no?  So wouldn't that speak to them not believing Kelly is as good as Hoyer/Brisset?  You may disagree but it's clear from the actions of the team that they don't think Kelly has earned or deserves a starting shot.  You hunting for excuses why Kelly hasn't earned the shot and then placing the blame for it on anyone other than Kelly, is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to your conspiracies.

 

Now I don't know the entire history of NFL QB battles, even less so regarding 3rd stringers.  However I think back to Wilson winning the starting slot over Flynn after competing against, and defeating him, in camp - despite Flynn just having received a multiyear contract to be the starter.  Brady replacing Bledsoe, though he was thrust in due to injury then decided later to keep him, not really a camp battle.

 

Every day at camp, every practice, every meeting is a chance for Kelly to impress the coaches and Ballard and make his case to get a starting gig.  However he has yet do successfully make his case.  That's not Brisset's or Hoyer's (or their salary's) fault.  It's just what the team has seen from Kelly.  It may not seem fair to you, and I'm sure it doesn't to Kelly either... but the fact is he has not been able to step up and claim the spot.  So he's not going to be handed it.  Simple.

[Stephen]

15 minutes ago, Indeee said:

Cheezy what are you talking about here? How is this a conspiracy?

 

Do you honestly believe any team in the NFL, who pays a back-up QB 9 million dollars is going to ever have a 3rd string/practice squad player unseat them without an injury? If you do, show me one NFL team where that has happened? If Hoyer was only getting 1-2 mil/ 1 year contrct than I would agree, Kelly could've easily replaced Hoyer based on earning it. But Hoyer got 3 yrs. 9mil. Come on?

 

On Brissett, do you honestly believe based on all things being equal that Hoyer or Kelly were ever going to supplant Brissett last year on anything other than a major Injury to Brissett? Exactly.

 

So what is it with this non-sense about conspiracy's? 

I mean the coaching staff is  loyal to a fault. Why else would vinatieri be  kiicking after missing  so much. Still in my opinion  if kelly was starting  caliber  why wouldn't  they start him.

The jags benched foles for minshew despite Foles making way more money.

[BigO]

3 hours ago, Indeee said:

Speaking for myself, the one who started this all, and after seeing what others have stated on here in regards toward optimism in Kelly, I think it's pretty clear. We, meaning the ones who are optimistic about Kelly have not been screaming this guy is the next HOF QB. We are throwing out our support in just wanting to see him PLAY. Wanting our Colts to at least give him a shot to play with the above average talent on this team and against the higher talent in games so we can see if he has what it takes or not. It seems, a lot though, not all, who are posting against our desire for that to happen are mainly making fun or making arguments for arguments sake. I personally believe that if every Colts fan on here TRULY wants what is best for this team, where finding our QB of the future is concerned, then ALL Colts fans should want what we Kelly supporters want as well, to see if a guy who is currently a Colt and that has been a Colt can be our future at that position. We ALL already know what Rivers is. He is proven and he will start, however Rivers is not a FUTURE plan regardless of whether this team wins a SB or not while he is here. We all know what JB is and I think it is safe to say that we can agree JB is okay and a decent back-up but will not likely be a franchise type QB anywhere especially here and we know that because JB has had actually playing chances against higher level talent. Eason was just drafted, who knows if he will or will not get that opportunity to play against higher level talent, no one can say, however he should not be given that chance before the guy who already has been here just because he was drafted from a higher slot. Kelly IS here and has been here though and just like JB who has gotten his chance, deserves his as well and THAT and that alone is what this is all about. Nothing more or nothing less. It's not about whether some of us like Kelly and some do not for whatever those reasons may be, it's that ALL Colts fans should want to see if this guy can lead this team or has what it takes to be an elite/above average QB in this league and if he can't, then at least he was given a real shot and he faltered, and we move on. If he is given that chance and succeeds then we ALL put differences aside and move on with our QB together. There is no reason to not want to see that as what would it hurt? That's why I don't understand why many Colts fans are so quick to pass Kelly off or use speculation that Kelly has already had chances or use the fact that he hasn't played against higher talent as a means to an end on Kelly, when we already know why he has not been given that chance and it has nothing to do with his talent or potential. He has not played with the higher talent so far because of 2 main reasons.

 

1) Brissett given a FULL season to be the future. Call it seniority, call it based on how much the organization hyped this guy, call it a locker room likeability/locker room leader, call it what you will, but it was a decision made by the brass behind the scenes where barring a season ending injury Brissett was going to start an entire season without a controversy of being replaced regardless of performance.

 

2) Hoyers monetary contract. Say what you will, however there was no way Kelly was going to take over the back-up role from a guy who was paid 9mil. That is a fact, regardless of whether Kelly outplayed Hoyer.

 

So all the chances in film study, off the field maturing, practices, and whatever was never going to give Kelly a real chance based on what I wrote above even though a lot on here has already said Kelly has had more chances than most. He has not in the reality of what the Colts situation was last season and it's time to stop making arguments for arguments sake and acknowledge the facts whether your a fan of Kelly or not.

 

Peace 

Well said. I agree!

[jaybeezy]

I guess I choose not to look at it like "the Colts aren't giving this guy a chance". I look at it at being responsible GM-ing. Correct me if I'm wrong but Phillip Rivers is under contract for only year. At his age his production can just fall down a cliff. Heck he can trip over one of his kids and suffer some sort of injury. Jacoby is also going into his last year with the colts. So potentially going into next year 2021... we will have no quarterback with experience on the roster. You are suggesting not drafting another quarterback only to give Kelly a "chance". Good GMs normally don't gamble with the most important position on the field. The Colts as a organization have to prepare for the future as best they can. What if you give Kelly his chance and he fails. Now what? I think the Colts needed to draft another quarterback just for this reason. Even if it wasn't Eason. You never want to go into a off season with such an obvious need at quarterback. You can end up with one of these washed up guys that keep circulating around the league. The draft is no guarantee, so drafting a guy and hoping he can develop is just smart. Let be honest if Ballard didn't draft a quarterback and gave Kelly his shot and he fails...river's production drops (or is injured) and jocoby is not on the roster...he would get roasted for not have the foresight to see this coming.      

[Indeee]

2 minutes ago, Stephen said:

I mean the coaching staff is  loyal to a fault. Why else would vinatieri be  kiicking after missing  so much. Still in my opinion  if kelly was starting  caliber  why wouldn't  they start him.

The jags benched foles for minshew despite Foles making way more money.

That is the million dollar question in regards to the last two games. All signs point to something methodical towards Brissett though. Even now, they are still giving the world the impression they believe in this guy where clearly everybody could see his abilities on the field were not elite. It's not a knock on Brissett, it's just not what everybody involved with this organization thought was going to take place, but instead of just being honest about what everyone already knows, this little game keeps being played. Kelly should have started those last two games because short of an extra couple possible wins on the final record, those two games meant nothing to last year's outcome and yet they still kept Brissett in and the most disturbing thing was Reich saying they were going to try some new wrinkles to help Brissett, in WEEK 15? It's almost as if they can't believe how wrong they were about Brissett and kind of are refusing to just cut bait and admit the mistake. The Jags went back to Foles and Foles stunk, then they went back to Minshew. Minshew, even though had some growing pains, gave a fire to the jags foles and bortles did not and I think Kelly would've done the same for the Colts. Colts just can't give up on Brissett for whatever reason that is.

[Coltscrazy]

I haven't chimed in on the Kelly topic, but I'm not sure why so many people don't like him.  I watched him light it up in preseason too.  I'm not saying he should compete to be a starter, but jeez louise, he can surely beat a 4th round pick who is soft in the head.  A whole lotta guys suck it up in preason, Phillip Walker.  At least Kelly showed up at some point.  I think he would be a great backup.  Ballard even mentioned Kelly after the draft, saying he and Eason will battle for a roster spot, and that whoever wins will have to earn it.  I think it is fair to give props to a QB who shows up in preseason, many don't.  Hating on the guy because fans hope he makes it is strange.

[Myles]

7 minutes ago, CheezyColt said:

In your mind you've already declared that if Eason beats out Kelly that it's only because of his draft slot.  Ballard has shown that he's unafraid to cut a 4th rounder the same year he drafted them if they aren't producing what they need to to earn a spot on this team. 

 

that he's not up to Jacoby's level though... at least in the minds of the decision makers.  

 

Teams will typically give a longer leash to a player based on the higher he was drafted.  

I think if Eason and Kelly perform similar, it'll be Eason who gets the better spot.  

 

It's scary to think we have any QB's on the roster who are not up to Jacoby's level.

 

[Jackie Daytona]

5 hours ago, Jdubu said:

I’ve seen what I need to see as a fan and I liked his potential. All this is based off of more than just seeing him play in a few meaningless preseason games. What I see is a team who has taken a college talent on par with a higher draft pick but his off field antics really killed his status. I’ve seen a team who paid this kid way more than the minimum to play on the PS for them. I’ve seen a team that elevated him to the 53 man when they didn’t have to if they didn’t have some faith in him and then I seen a team keep him on the 5e when they easily could have justified cutting him last year for a positional spot during the injury plagued end of the season. All of this together tells me the team is higher on him than several of the people in this forum who hate him because he was an * as a young man. It’s now been how long since his name has shown up in a negative newspaper article for being an *? 
 

Kelly May or may not amount to a thing at all and it’s quite possible he will be cut to start the 2020 regular season when it gets down to the selection of our 53, however, he is still a member of this team and a talent several of us fans are rooting for. I will continue to do so until he is gone from the team and then I will root on the guys that are still here, I won’t belly ache that he was cut if that’s the case. I do believe though if he isn’t cut and JB is, we will hear the JB fans or the CK haters, they will come out with a fury. 

Brissett still has vocal fans around here?  

[Stephen]

12 minutes ago, Myles said:

Teams will typically give a longer leash to a player based on the higher he was drafted.  

I think if Eason and Kelly perform similar, it'll be Eason who gets the better spot.  

 

It's scary to think we have any QB's on the roster who are not up to Jacoby's level.

 

Brissett  should be traded or cut. Not sure how he even feels comfortable  being  on the team with the signing of rivers and the drafting  of another  qb. Eason and Kelly  can compete for the backup position  and if they feel niether  are the answer long term draft another qb next year

[CheezyColt]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

Teams will typically give a longer leash to a player based on the higher he was drafted.  

I think if Eason and Kelly perform similar, it'll be Eason who gets the better spot.  

 

It's scary to think we have any QB's on the roster who are not up to Jacoby's level.

 

I don't disagree with the bolded, at all.  But even with that being the case, it's up to Kelly to perform well enough to beat out whoever is in front of him.  If he doesn't do so, it's not somebody else's fault.  Kelly has the head start in terms of knowing the system and having spent time with the coaches and teammates whereas Eason is coming in as a fresh faced 22 year old rookie.  If they did perform similar, I'd argue that's a valid reason for declaring Eason the winner.

[Stephen]

3 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

Brissett still has vocal fans around here?  

There are a few sighting Brissett's 5 and 2 start and the injuries 

[Indeee]

32 minutes ago, Stephen said:

I mean the coaching staff is  loyal to a fault. Why else would vinatieri be  kiicking after missing  so much. Still in my opinion  if kelly was starting  caliber  why wouldn't  they start him.

The jags benched foles for minshew despite Foles making way more money.

And for that matter if the Colts would've started Hoyer those last two games I would be more inclined to agree with you about Kelly, but they didnt and some on here suggested that Colts already saw Hoyer was bad so that's why Hoyer didnt play those final two games but we hadn't seen if Kelly was bad so none of us can say if he would've been. That's in large part why Im firmly in belief about their plan with Brissett ladt year from the jump. It's a head scratcher

[Four2itus]

So, a day later.........

 

When did the Jets trade for their 4th round pick? As I got to thinking about where the Colts selected Eason...

 

(122) Jacob Eason - Washington QB

(123) Reggie Robinson II - Tulsa CB

(124) Anthony McFarland Jr. - Maryland RB

(125) James Morgan - Florida International QB (From CHI through NE)

(126) Charlie Heck - North Carolina OT

 

...and the Jets traded up to get Morgan....makes me think they either wanted Eason or Morgan, and moved up once we made our selection. 

[krunk]

They'll give Kelly his chance this preseason and training camp, but the only way he'll win is if he's head and shoulders above Eason.   I don't think they walk away from Eason easily.  Kelly will have to be clearly better.

[Jdubu]

6 hours ago, Stephen said:

I mean the coaching staff is  loyal to a fault. Why else would vinatieri be  kiicking after missing  so much. Still in my opinion  if kelly was starting  caliber  why wouldn't  they start him.

The jags benched foles for minshew despite Foles making way more money.

I think we have coaching that has been more loyal to their vets over a younger player than other coaches in this league. Reich seems to have followed the Same path as Pagano and to some degree, Dungy. Don’t know if that’s a product of Irsay making sure we treat the vets more respectful and then move them after the season or that’s just the types of coaches we look for. We all know that BB would cut his own mother to win in this league, he is ruthless. Some others are as well but that’s not Reich. Steady hand is one thing, playing other guys with more experience but haven’t produced lately isn’t a recipe for winning it all. Idk. 

6 hours ago, CheezyColt said:

I don't disagree with the bolded, at all.  But even with that being the case, it's up to Kelly to perform well enough to beat out whoever is in front of him.  If he doesn't do so, it's not somebody else's fault.  Kelly has the head start in terms of knowing the system and having spent time with the coaches and teammates whereas Eason is coming in as a fresh faced 22 year old rookie.  If they did perform similar, I'd argue that's a valid reason for declaring Eason the winner.

I will agree, and I’m definitely supportive of CK. If CK just performs equal to Eason then he does not deserve to win the spot over Eason. CK should be well past what Eason can do given equal opportunities.
 

We are going to see how this ends up starting the season but CK has already outlasted Hoyer and it’s not going to shock me if he is t here past JB too. We still may keep 3 QB’s to hedge the position during the season and see how Rivers reacts and performs over 16 games at his age. CB then has to decide whether to give CK an extension after the season or has Eason caught up to CK By then??? 
 

Nobody knows

[Btown_Colt]

My goodness. All of this over one player who has never played in a regular season game. 
 

I thought he looked good in preseason too. I wanted to see him late last year, mainly because I was never excited about JB and was over watching him play. 
 

I get all the different opinions on him, but what I can’t quite fathom is all the people who think he is a future hall-of-famer yet think the entire Colts organization, from Jim Irsay all the way down to the assistant of the assistant water boy is too blind to see it....come on now. If he was as good as some of you make him out to be, someone would have seen it. 

[Smoke317]

11 hours ago, Indeee said:

That is the million dollar question in regards to the last two games. All signs point to something methodical towards Brissett though. Even now, they are still giving the world the impression they believe in this guy where clearly everybody could see his abilities on the field were not elite. It's not a knock on Brissett, it's just not what everybody involved with this organization thought was going to take place, but instead of just being honest about what everyone already knows, this little game keeps being played. Kelly should have started those last two games because short of an extra couple possible wins on the final record, those two games meant nothing to last year's outcome and yet they still kept Brissett in and the most disturbing thing was Reich saying they were going to try some new wrinkles to help Brissett, in WEEK 15? It's almost as if they can't believe how wrong they were about Brissett and kind of are refusing to just cut bait and admit the mistake. The Jags went back to Foles and Foles stunk, then they went back to Minshew. Minshew, even though had some growing pains, gave a fire to the jags foles and bortles did not and I think Kelly would've done the same for the Colts. Colts just can't give up on Brissett for whatever reason that is.

And you sir can’t give up on Kelly for whatever reason that is...

[Four2itus]

Lol......so let me get this straight....

 

Every single GM in the NFL, individuals at the top of their profession, passed on drafting Chad Kelly for 7 rounds until the Broncos made him Mr Irrelevant. He gets busted for breaking the law and gets cut after an NFL career of 1 kneel down. 

 

Then, after the Colts sign him, he gets put on the practice squad and 31 G.M.'s once again do not sign him.

 

After all that, Chris Ballard and the Colts staff are either blind, clueless, or not giving him a chance because they don't want to look bad? Am I getting this right?

 

 This is top flight entertainment. Goodness. 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, Four2itus said:

 

 This is top flight entertainment. Goodness. 

Only in a fans forum!  

[SteelCityColt]

Chances of Kelly never being the starter.. 1000%

[BigO]

The real question is why are we paying JB the kind of money we are paying him when Jameis Winston just signed for a little over 1 million a year with the saints. The Bengals just released  Dalton because of his salary being too high to be a backup. We need to either trade JB or cut him and then sign Clowney somebody that will actually help the team. Then our QB problem would be solved

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, BigO said:

The real question is why are we paying JB the kind of money we are paying him when Jameis Winston just signed for a little over 1 million a year with the saints. The Bengals just released  Dalton because of his salary being too high to be a backup. We need to either trade JB or cut him and then sign Clowney somebody that will actually help the team. Then our QB problem would be solved

Because JB is under contract? Ballard at this point is not trusting the back up roll to an unproven QB. It's not rocker science. 

[BigO]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Because JB is under contract? Ballard at this point is not trusting the back up roll to an unproven QB. It's not rocker science. 

Dalton was under contract also. If they would have been smarter last year and played Kelly the last 2 games they would know more of what they have in Kelly. Then we would not have to overpay for a backup that is not very good. Like I said the saints got Winston for a little over 1 million