Phillip Rivers

[Coltsman1788 1,688]

Just now, John Waylon said:

Someone retweeted this late in the game and I didn’t know the stats were this dire, but I definitely wasn’t surprised by it, either. 

 

Yes...I saw that as well.  That’s pretty abysmal.  Not a lot to look forward to if that is what we can expect. 

[boltfan 4]

WELCOME TO MY WORLD COLTSFANS!!!

 

I have been a Chargers fan all my life. I hated that Rivers left but was happy that he landed in Indy. I am rooting for him to have a great year and watched today's game with great anticipation. #17 played so well along with the Colts offense that I can't believe they let that one go!!! And yes, Rivers threw boneheaded INTs at the worst times. It was like watching my Bolts!!! I can't defend what he did but the defense was awful too. I THINK the Colts will win their division anyway. Rivers is very frustrating at times. Give him a chance though!!! It will never be boring with #17!!!

[Wentzszn 10,410]

Reich was the one pushing for Rivers. I’d this fails he is going to be on the hot seat.

[Coltsman1788 1,688]

IMO...Rivers was signed because of familiarity.  Not because he was still any good. Colts must do better to be taken seriously. 

[Grigson's Gaffes 117]

Where are all the mouthbreathers who told me how dumb I was to question the Rivers signing?

[DontEverGiveUp 900]

Meanwhile, Brady's first half with the Tampa Bay super team:

8/12, 76 yds, 1 INT

 

And some of y'all think he would have magically made the Colts defense better today.  TY would have made the catch too.

[Thunderbolt 459]

Surprised the GM and coach didn't do the research. Another blown opportunity. This team is jinxed year after year it looks like.

[Coltswarriors 3]

Imagine watching the game today and thinking Rivers is the biggest issue we have... yikes...

[superrep1967 583]

8 hours ago, John Waylon said:

Three picks thrown today, and every single one of them were absolute garbage. 
 

Like never should have been thrown garbage. 
 

Even some of the throws he did complete (to our team, not the other one. Just to be clear.) were into coverage tight enough they shouldn’t have been thrown. 
 

He almost made it an entire game before wearing out the ultra-thin welcome I had made for him coming into the season. 
 

He never had the talent in his primest of prime to change my mind on that, so yeah... I’m all out on him. 

He could have easily had three picks today. It's like he don't out there sometimes. 

[Bolts2Colts 303]

The Colts stressed that he doesn’t need to carry the team but asked him to throw 46 times?  
Rivers tends to get more aggressive when he doesn’t have confidence in the defense or the running game.

 

[JediXMan 628]

Colts need to be more balanced on O Throwing 46 times is a recipe for disaster. This is not why he came here.

[GoColts8818 5,001]

6 hours ago, Thunderbolt said:

Surprised the GM and coach didn't do the research. Another blown opportunity. This team is jinxed year after year it looks like.

Just because it didn’t produce the results people wanted doesn’t mean they didn’t do the research.  Do you really think Ballard and Frank went what do you want to do at QB?  I don’t know let’s go get Rivers he’s a big name and Frank used to coach him.

[GoColts8818 5,001]

32 minutes ago, JediXMan said:

Colts need to be more balanced on O Throwing 46 times is a recipe for disaster. This is not why he came here.

Yeah I didn’t like the game plan.  The Colts were leading most of the way but kept throwing the ball.  Add to that when they would run they tried to run with Hines when running isn’t his strong suit, then they’d bring Taylor in and throw to him.  I think Frank got too cute with the play calling and wanted to show off all his new toys.

[GoColts8818 5,001]

44 minutes ago, Bolts2Colts said:

The Colts stressed that he doesn’t need to carry the team but asked him to throw 46 times?  
Rivers tends to get more aggressive when he doesn’t have confidence in the defense or the running game.

 

He reminds me of Peyton before Dungy got a hold of him.  Both Peyton and Dungy said the hardest thing for Peyton to learn was that an incompletion that lead to a punt wasn’t a bad play.

[Girlzarefanstoo 132]

I watched the game and for the most part Rivers looked pretty good.  The quicker tempo suited him.  I noticed that a high percentage of his passes were short and medium range.  

 

The loss was a bigger failing than just Rivers, but his errors were significant.  Biggest failing that he didn't used to do... staring down the receiver.  When you've lost a bit of the zip on your throws you can't give away where you are throwing it.  The NFL will eat you alive if you do.  

[Myles 4,326]

I'm still on board with Rivers for this team.  Reich just needs to do better.   

[Superman 9,562]

6 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm still on board with Rivers for this team.  Reich just needs to do better.   

 

Nothing has changed for me. His fit in the offense is obvious. He found receivers quickly, the pace and tempo were good, all of a sudden we have a screen game, swing passes were completed with chance for extra yardage, etc.

 

We have to run better, and he has to be more judicious with the ball. And we'll see if he can play well enough down the stretch for the whole season. 

 

My concern when we signed him was late game interceptions, and whether he's about to completely fall apart. I have the same questions today as I did in March.

[JediXMan 628]

I still don’t get why Reich abandon the run game in the second half it wasn’t like we were down. It was 17-14 Colts. You still had Taylor. Wilkins and Hines.

[Restored 270]

Just now, JediXMan said:

I still don’t get why Reich abandon the run game in the second half it wasn’t like we were down. It was 17-14 Colts. You still had Taylor. Wilkins and Hines.

 

I haven't watched the tape again to confirm this but I wonder if it was a product of the Jags defense stacking the box quite a bit. Even still, the Colts still need to be able to effectively run the ball in those instances.

[Myles 4,326]

1 minute ago, JediXMan said:

I still don’t get why Reich abandon the run game in the second half it wasn’t like we were down. It was 17-14 Colts. You still had Taylor. Wilkins and Hines.

This was one of Reichs head scratchers.  

 

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nothing has changed for me. His fit in the offense is obvious. He found receivers quickly, the pace and tempo were good, all of a sudden we have a screen game, swing passes were completed with chance for extra yardage, etc.

 

We have to run better, and he has to be more judicious with the ball. And we'll see if he can play well enough down the stretch for the whole season. 

 

 

Early in the game, the offense looks great.   Just what I was hoping for.  Rivers will throw INT's, but he can still keep us in a game.  Hiltons drops ended what looked to be a scoring drive ready to happen.  Abandoning the running game didn't help either.   On to next week and a "must win" IMO.

[Wentzszn 10,410]

9 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

I haven't watched the tape again to confirm this but I wonder if it was a product of the Jags defense stacking the box quite a bit. Even still, the Colts still need to be able to effectively run the ball in those instances.

Well if that is what they were doing that’s why we got rivers. To stop that from happening and make them pay for stacking the box.

[Restored 270]

1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

Well if that is what they were doing that’s why we got rivers. To stop that from happening and make them pay for stacking the box.

 

And for the most part, Rivers and Co. did. The problem is the turnovers and lack of running at all hardly in the second half to at least keep the defense somewhat honest.

[w87r 5,619]

11 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

I haven't watched the tape again to confirm this but I wonder if it was a product of the Jags defense stacking the box quite a bit. Even still, the Colts still need to be able to effectively run the ball in those instances.

Guess thats an answer we need.

 

Was it the play calling or did Rivers audible out? Not sure id that's been answered yet. Didn't hear post game pressers.

[Restored 270]

Just now, w87r said:

Guess thats an answer we need.

 

Was it the play calling or did Rivers audible out? Not sure id that's been answered yet. Didn't hear post game pressers.

 

Rivers sure was doing his best Peyton Manning impression at times during the game so I'd be interested to know the answer to that one too.

[chad72 7,861]

All I remember from the Norv turner days is the Chargers always started slowly, well he joined the right team for that, LOL.  

 

4-8 after a loss to the Peyton led Colts in 2008 and 8-8 to win the division and host a playoff game and we know how it turned out with Scifres and Sproles.

 

Read this article:

 

https://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/50404/philip-rivers-supports-coach-norv-turner

 

Chargers were 20-2 in December/January playoff games under Turner and Rivers. For some reason, this guy takes time to get going at the beginning of the season. Unfortunately, he does not have the equity that Peyton had in 2008 (3-4 to 12-4) or Luck had in 2018 (1-5 to 10-6 with the 0-6 in the middle of the streak vs the Jags in Jacksonville ).

 

Peyton in his first year with the Broncos, started 3-4 before getting in rhythm and going 12-4 for HFA in the AFC. So, when the team gets more and more desperate every week and the sooner it starts to play in rhythm, Rivers and the offense will get better and the Colts will win. However, adjustments have to be made on the defensive side, no doubt about it.

 

If this lights a fire under them and they go 11-5 and win the division, it will be a distant memory. They have to try their best not to go 0-2. Remember, the 2008 Colts under Peyton, lost the Lucas Oil Stadium first game vs Matt Forte and the Bears and squeaked out a FG win vs the Vikings in game 2??? I am hoping for a close win similarly after thinking about it. Either a lop sided loss or a close win. 

[GoColts8818 5,001]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nothing has changed for me. His fit in the offense is obvious. He found receivers quickly, the pace and tempo were good, all of a sudden we have a screen game, swing passes were completed with chance for extra yardage, etc.

 

We have to run better, and he has to be more judicious with the ball. And we'll see if he can play well enough down the stretch for the whole season. 

 

My concern when we signed him was late game interceptions, and whether he's about to completely fall apart. I have the same questions today as I did in March.

I am with you, my concern about Rivers is what’s always been the knock on Rivers.  Too many “What were you thinking?” throws.  Outside of the two or three of those, which can’t be over looked, he played very well.  He’s clearly an upgrade over Jacoby.  I just don’t think he’s on par with Luck but I never expected him to be.

[DontEverGiveUp 900]

6 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I am with you, my concern about Rivers is what’s always been the knock on Rivers.  Too many “What were you thinking?” throws.  Outside of the two or three of those, which can’t be over looked, he played very well.  He’s clearly an upgrade over Jacoby.  I just don’t think he’s on par with Luck but I never expected him to be.

To be fair, Luck and Rivers have the same career INT %.

 

With a bigger sample size later in the season, and as Rivers and the WR corps get to know each other better, your perspective on this might change.

 

Luck was more mobile obviously, but reading defenses and throw accuracy are pretty much even from my perspective.

 

Also, Rivers looked pretty clutch on the final drive yesterday.  If TY hauls in either of those catches, it certainly felt like the game was heading to overtime.

[Grigson's Gaffes 117]

If the Colts can’t win a game where they give up no sacks and don’t punt, against a team largely perceived to be a bottom two team, who can they beat? I fully expect to have people telling me how right I was on Rivers by Week 7.

[Rackeen305 433]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I'm still on board with Rivers for this team.  Reich just needs to do better.   

 

56 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nothing has changed for me. His fit in the offense is obvious. He found receivers quickly, the pace and tempo were good, all of a sudden we have a screen game, swing passes were completed with chance for extra yardage, etc.

 

We have to run better, and he has to be more judicious with the ball. And we'll see if he can play well enough down the stretch for the whole season. 

 

My concern when we signed him was late game interceptions, and whether he's about to completely fall apart. I have the same questions today as I did in March.

Howdy guys! Didn't think to see you all back lol. About that conversation we had a month or so ago, where I was clowned for saying things like, we could have done better with $25Ms to Rivers. I.e. sign Newton. Remember?

 

I was wrong, because Newton doesn't "fit". If you look at the better teams, (Pats, Chiefs, Ravens, etc.) They find a way to accommodate their players, not just force things on to them. So what I'm saying like I've said before, Newton (former MVP, remember how I was saying that Newton has done things that Rivers hasn't? And that AL was compared to Newton, speed, height, weight?) Would take this team further than Rivers. And would be much much cheaper. At least $15Ms cheaper.

[chad72 7,861]

3 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

 

Howdy guys! Didn't think to see you all back lol. About that conversation we had a month or so ago, where I was clowned for saying things like, we could have done better with $25Ms to Rivers. I.e. sign Newton. Remember?

 

I was wrong, because Newton doesn't "fit". If you look at the better teams, (Pats, Chiefs, Ravens, etc.) They find a way to accommodate their players, not just force things on to them. So what I'm saying like I've said before, Newton (former MVP, remember how I was saying that Newton has done things that Rivers hasn't? And that AL was compared to Newton, speed, height, weight?) Would take this team further than Rivers. And would be much much cheaper. At least $15Ms cheaper.

 

You said it, whether it was Newton or Rivers, we wouldn't have accommodated him like the Pats, Chiefs, Ravens would have, no matter what it would have cost. You answered your own question, I guess. 

[Myles 4,326]

3 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

 

Howdy guys! Didn't think to see you all back lol. About that conversation we had a month or so ago, where I was clowned for saying things like, we could have done better with $25Ms to Rivers. I.e. sign Newton. Remember?

 

I was wrong, because Newton doesn't "fit". If you look at the better teams, (Pats, Chiefs, Ravens, etc.) They find a way to accommodate their players, not just force things on to them. So what I'm saying like I've said before, Newton (former MVP, remember how I was saying that Newton has done things that Rivers hasn't? And that AL was compared to Newton, speed, height, weight?) Would take this team further than Rivers. And would be much much cheaper. At least $15Ms cheaper.

At this point, I would still rather have Rivers.   Even with the $$ difference.   Not sure what Newton could have been had for at the time.  We had the salary cap space, so I'm not too worried about Irsay and his money.   After seeing the run/pass option with Brissett yesterday, I have my doubt on whether Reich could work an offense around Cam.   

[DontEverGiveUp 900]

14 minutes ago, Grigson's Gaffes said:

If the Colts can’t win a game where they give up no sacks and don’t punt, against a team largely perceived to be a bottom two team, who can they beat? I fully expect to have people telling me how right I was on Rivers by Week 7.

Only time will tell.  I'm also curious to see if you will admit you were wrong if/when the team gets on a roll and wins the division.

 

Lots of week 1 overreactions going on all over the place, but the reality is that the Colts played poorly in all phases of the game yesterday.  Using the loss to "prove" your stance on Rivers is pretty short-sighted.  I guess the Bucs made a huge mistake signing Brady too...should have kept Jameis or signed Cam instead?

 

You could end up being right of course, but we won't know until several more games have been played.

[Wentzszn 10,410]

Rivers isn’t as good as Manning and Luck. He can’t throw int like he did because he isn’t going to put the points up like the other two dId. Especially at his age.  

[Superman 9,562]

16 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

 

Howdy guys! Didn't think to see you all back lol. About that conversation we had a month or so ago, where I was clowned for saying things like, we could have done better with $25Ms to Rivers. I.e. sign Newton. Remember?

 

I was wrong, because Newton doesn't "fit". If you look at the better teams, (Pats, Chiefs, Ravens, etc.) They find a way to accommodate their players, not just force things on to them. So what I'm saying like I've said before, Newton (former MVP, remember how I was saying that Newton has done things that Rivers hasn't? And that AL was compared to Newton, speed, height, weight?) Would take this team further than Rivers. And would be much much cheaper. At least $15Ms cheaper.

 

Why are you quoting me on this nonsense? Why don't you go back and try reading what I posted in the thread you're talking about, and stop misrepresenting my argument?

[Grigson's Gaffes 117]

4 minutes ago, DontEverGiveUp said:

Only time will tell.  I'm also curious to see if you will admit you were wrong if/when the team gets on a roll and wins the division.

 

Lots of week 1 overreactions going on all over the place, but the reality is that the Colts played poorly in all phases of the game yesterday.  Using the loss to "prove" your stance on Rivers is pretty short-sighted.  I guess the Bucs made a huge mistake signing Brady too...should have kept Jameis or signed Cam instead?

 

You could end up being right of course, but we won't know until several more games have been played.

If I’m wrong I’ll gladly admit it. Probably won’t have to though. Going 9-7 and winning a terrible division would hardly mean I was wrong. The Buccaneers lost to the Saints, the Colts lost to the Jags. Little bit of difference in opponent quality.

[chad72 7,861]

Just now, Grigson's Gaffes said:

If I’m wrong I’ll gladly admit it. Probably won’t have to though. Going 9-7 and winning a terrible division would hardly mean I was wrong. The Buccaneers lost to the Saints, the Colts lost to the Jags. Little bit of difference in opponent quality.

 

So, it is about you being right than the Colts winning, got it!!! 

[Restored 270]

1 minute ago, Grigson's Gaffes said:

If I’m wrong I’ll gladly admit it. Probably won’t have to though. Going 9-7 and winning a terrible division would hardly mean I was wrong. The Buccaneers lost to the Saints, the Colts lost to the Jags. Little bit of difference in opponent quality.

 

Opponent quality doesn't change the fact that Brady played poorly in the same sense that you think Rivers played poorly.

[Grigson's Gaffes 117]

25 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Opponent quality doesn't change the fact that Brady played poorly in the same sense that you think Rivers played poorly.

So you don’t factor in the quality of opponent when evaluating play? That’s insightful. 

26 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

So, it is about you being right than the Colts winning, got it!!! 

Once people made it personal, yes it is.

[chad72 7,861]

Just now, Grigson's Gaffes said:

Once people made it personal, yes it is.

 

You made it personal as well. So, there it is. 

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

1 hour ago, JediXMan said:

I still don’t get why Reich abandon the run game in the second half it wasn’t like we were down. It was 17-14 Colts. You still had Taylor. Wilkins and Hines.

The Colts didn't abandon the run game in the 2nd half.  The Colts had 10 running plays in the 1st half and 12 in the 2nd half and 8 runs in the 3rd quarter.  And with the game tied 17 all in the 4th quarter, the Colts ran the ball 4 out of 6 plays until Doyle got called for a crack back block and made it 1-25.  Then they wen 3 pass plays and a FG.  After that Jax took the lead on the next drive, then Rivers threw the INT after 2 plays and the jags went up by 7 with 2:50 left in the game.  Pretty much have to primarily throw at that point.

 

Running numbers exclude River's scramble for 3 yards.