Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Backup Quarterback Confusion...


Recommended Posts

Before i begin i just want to say that i'm not taking any shots at anyone but only keeping things real. That being said i dont get it. I just dont understand why Jacoby a person were not going to be resigning next season is our back up QB and not Eason. I know people say hes our best back up QB but again hes on his way out the door i mean why not have Eason a QB who is suppose to be our future on this team be the backup and have Brissett be the third stringer? i ask this because if you look at the packers you see Love as the backup aka the future starter, Tua on the dolphins is the backup for Fitz again future starter, then there's Hurts on the eagles behind wentz another one. These guys i mention wont start right away but at least they'll be ready when called upon i mean Herbert on the chargers has put up fine numbers these last two games and he never saw any Pre season action. So my question is why cant we have Eason be the one taking the snaps when were up by big margins instead of someone who wont be on the team after this season?

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Before i begin i just want to say that i'm not taking any shots at anyone but only keeping things real. That being said i dont get it. I just dont understand why Jacoby a person were not going to be r

There's no evidence that anyone in the organization or in the locker room has any issue with JB. All evidence to the contrary, as a matter of fact.   I think it's disingenuous of you to theo

Do you want to dress three QBs on game day? Probably not, right? Especially with the injuries at virtually every other position (specifically on offense). The only time you dress three QBs on game day

6 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

Before i begin i just want to say that i'm not taking any shots at anyone but only keeping things real. That being said i dont get it. I just dont understand why Jacoby a person were not going to be resigning next season is our back up QB and not Eason. I know people say hes our best back up QB but again hes on his way out the door i mean why not have Eason a QB who is suppose to be our future on this team be the backup and have Brissett be the third stringer? i ask this because if you look at the packers you see Love as the backup aka the future starter, Tua on the dolphins is the backup for Fitz again future starter, then there's Hurts on the eagles behind wentz another one. These guys i mention wont start right away but at least they'll be ready when called upon i mean Herbert on the chargers has put up fine numbers these last two games and he never saw any Pre season action. So my question is why cant we have Eason be the one taking the snaps when were up by big margins instead of someone who wont be on the team after this season?

It's because Brissett is the better back up QB right now, for this season.  They feel he is better than Eason at this point and that would make him the correct choice for the role.  It'd be different if they didn't have high expectations for this team.  Love, Tua and Hurts are the best backup those teams have.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because of Ballard's man crush and maybe Reich's as well. Also, they don't want to hurt his feelings. Sorry, JB shouldn't be on this team let alone the back up QB. In JB's case, management has made their decisions with their heart instead of their head. I know the daily regulars, on this forum, will tell me how wrong i am but so be it. This is how i feel and have felt since last year. 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

It's also early in a season where the preseason was disrupted quite dramatically. Give him time and training reps and this might be a more pertinent question as the season gets past the halfway mark. 

I think that depends on our playoff chances.   If we are fighting for a playoff spot or already locked in, it'll be Brissett all the way.  If we are out of the playoff hunt, it might be Eason in order to plan for the future.  

I really don't like Brissett as a starter as I think he plays .500 ball, but.500 ball is OK for a backup.   Now if Rivers would be out the rest of the season, they may go with Brissett until he loses a game or 2 and make the switch to Eason.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

JB is being paid an awful lot of money, and is a known commodity.  Rivers is very durable.  Eason has the luxury of watching and learning without pressure.  No need to create a locker-room issue and the associated public controversy

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, lincolndefan said:

It's because of Ballard's man crush and maybe Reich's as well. Also, they don't want to hurt his feelings. Sorry, JB shouldn't be on this team let alone the back up QB. In JB's case, management has made their decisions with their heart instead of their head. I know the daily regulars, on this forum, will tell me how wrong i am but so be it. This is how i feel and have felt since last year. 

It's because Brissett is being paid $20 million this year, Eason is a 4th round pick and needs a year to get acclimated to the NFL, and they have zero faith in Kelly for some reason. I guarantee you, Brissett won't last past the year. He is the backup because he's a good game manager, and the Colts would look bad if they paid him $20 million and he was the 3rd string behind Rivers and a rookie 4th round QB. It's mostly a PR move with a slight reason that he'll give us a chance to win a game or two if Rivers goes down.

 

I'd probably start Eason myself though if Rivers was out for the season. At that point, I wouldn't trust Brissett to carry us to the playoffs, but he'd still start because of his $20 million dollar contract this year. It gives him priority unfortunately.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

It's because Brissett is being paid $20 million this year, Eason is a 4th round pick and needs a year to get acclimated to the NFL, and they have zero faith in Kelly for some reason. I guarantee you, Brissett won't last past the year. He is the backup because he's a good game manager, and the Colts would look bad if they paid him $20 million and he was the 3rd string behind Rivers and a rookie 4th round QB. It's mostly a PR move with a slight reason that he'll give us a chance to win a game or two if Rivers goes down.

 

I'd probably start Eason myself though if Rivers was out for the season. At that point, I wouldn't trust Brissett to carry us to the playoffs, but he'd still start because of his $20 million dollar contract this year. It gives him priority unfortunately.

I think the money is part of it, but I think it is more about him being familiar in the offense and his floor is higher than Eason, a 4th round rookie.  Honestly, if the Colts were 10-4 and looked to be playoff bound, I'd take the experience of Brissett in at QB before I threw a rookie QB in for a playoff run.  

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

It's because Brissett is being paid $20 million this year, Eason is a 4th round pick and needs a year to get acclimated to the NFL, and they have zero faith in Kelly for some reason. I guarantee you, Brissett won't last past the year. He is the backup because he's a good game manager, and the Colts would look bad if they paid him $20 million and he was the 3rd string behind Rivers and a rookie 4th round QB. It's mostly a PR move with a slight reason that he'll give us a chance to win a game or two if Rivers goes down.

 

I'd probably start Eason myself though if Rivers was out for the season. At that point, I wouldn't trust Brissett to carry us to the playoffs, but he'd still start because of his $20 million dollar contract this year. It gives him priority unfortunately.

You took my post and added a bunch of text....:hat:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Myles said:

I think the money is part of it, but I think it is more about him being familiar in the offense and his floor is higher than Eason, a 4th round rookie.  Honestly, if the Colts were 10-4 and looked to be playoff bound, I'd take the experience of Brissett in at QB before I threw a rookie QB in for a playoff run.  

If we were 10-4, I 100% agree with that. We'd probably go 1-1 in that case and secure the division. He's definitely more familiar with the offense and playbook, I just don't want him starting more than a couple games tbh. In the event that Rivers goes down for the year, I'd rather have Eason, especially based on sample sizes of other rookie QBs being able to adapt to the NFL at a decent rate in the last few years.

3 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

You took my post and added a bunch of text....:hat:

Sorry, I was typing before I saw yours and clicked submit. :) 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lot of mystery hear. Eason won't likely be dressed/active this season unless we have a gimpy QB. 

It would be nice to have Eason there for mop-up experience, but we're just not going to use an active slot on him in the case we might blow someone out. Now if we're out of the playoff race at some point, that may change.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shadow_Creek said:

After watching Herbert in action id say yes in a heart beat

 

Yep, it's always a safe bet to trust a guy who's never played in an NFL game over a proven backup.  

 

Hey, I have some Enron stock that I can give you a good deal on!

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Yep, it's always a safe bet to trust a guy who's never played in an NFL game over a proven backup.  

 

Hey, I have some Enron stock that I can give you a good deal on!

So never give him a chance if there’s a player on the roster with experience. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

So never give him a chance if there’s a player on the roster with experience. 

 

No, the question is - who do you want as your backup on game day if Rivers goes down.

  

Don't you think the coaches might know that answer better than us?  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

No, the question is - who do you want as your backup on game day if Rivers goes down.

  

Don't you think the coaches might know that answer better than us?  

It depends. If Rivers is out a game or two, then Brissett. If he's out for the year, stick Eason in. Brissett has proven twice he can't lead this team to the playoffs in a full season.

 

I think there's some room to argue the coaches know better than us if the situation came up where they started Brissett for multiple games. At that point, they would be ignoring 2017 and 2019, and starting Brissett more for the fact that they are paying him $20 million this year and they don't want to look bad if Eason looked terrible. It would definitely be fair to question Reich and Ballard at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Not a lot of mystery hear. Eason won't likely be dressed/active this season unless we have a gimpy QB. 

It would be nice to have Eason there for mop-up experience, but we're just not going to use an active slot on him in the case we might blow someone out. Now if we're out of the playoff race at some point, that may change.

This. In addition, I think its very reasonable to believe that he just isnt ready to be the #2 qb.Re: posts about Eason over Brissett,  Reich and Ballard think this is the year, if Rivers goes down for 3 games, they certainly would prefer going 1-2 under Brissett to Eason getting game experience but going 0-3.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

It depends. If Rivers is out a game or two, then Brissett. If he's out for the year, stick Eason in. Brissett has proven twice he can't lead this team to the playoffs in a full season.

 

I think there's some room to argue the coaches know better than us if the situation came up where they started Brissett for multiple games. At that point, they would be ignoring 2017 and 2019, and starting Brissett more for the fact that they are paying him $20 million this year and they don't want to look bad if Eason looked terrible. It would definitely be fair to question Reich and Ballard at that point.

I'm sure they would also take into consideration the improvement of the team in general.  The defense is better than 2017 or 2019, no question.  I don't believe it's a top 3 defense in the league, but it is better.   Almost every position is better, so maybe Brissett could win some games.  Eason is a rookie with no NFL game action.  Brissett would be the guy unless we are something like 4-8.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ColtV said:

This. In addition, I think its very reasonable to believe that he just isnt ready to be the #2 qb.Re: posts about Eason over Brissett,  Reich and Ballard think this is the year, if Rivers goes down for 3 games, they certainly would prefer going 1-2 under Brissett to Eason getting game experience but going 0-3.

Yup. And if their plan is to have Rivers back next year, there's just not really a need to throw Eason into the frying pan. If Rivers go down for the year, or for some reason tells the team he's done after 2020, things would change, but right now we're likely all-in on 2020, and assuming Rivers leads us again in 21

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

After what I saw from Jacoby in the fourth quarter Sunday I agree. He was bad. 

I agree he wasn't "good", but he really wasn't asked to do a lot. His job was to just be safe, run clock, and not turn the ball over.

 

That said, I'm not a fan of the in-game "packages" for JB. He's not good enough in any one phase to constitute a package. His best quality is he's big and hard to bring down. The only time I can see a use, is goal line or XX and inches sneak.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lincolndefan said:

It's because of Ballard's man crush and maybe Reich's as well. Also, they don't want to hurt his feelings. Sorry, JB shouldn't be on this team let alone the back up QB. In JB's case, management has made their decisions with their heart instead of their head. I know the daily regulars, on this forum, will tell me how wrong i am but so be it. This is how i feel and have felt since last year. 

Nope with the colts luck with injuries I say we need a competent back up QB in case rivers gets hurt jacoby showed he can be effect . Do I want him as starter no but a few games yes if rivers were to get hurt 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

It depends. If Rivers is out a game or two, then Brissett. If he's out for the year, stick Eason in. Brissett has proven twice he can't lead this team to the playoffs in a full season.

 

I think there's some room to argue the coaches know better than us if the situation came up where they started Brissett for multiple games. At that point, they would be ignoring 2017 and 2019, and starting Brissett more for the fact that they are paying him $20 million this year and they don't want to look bad if Eason looked terrible. It would definitely be fair to question Reich and Ballard at that point.

 

I'm going to respectfully disagree, unless you're saying that's your opinion.  But I don't think it's what the coaches would do.

 

You saw last season when Jacoby looked horrible, we had nothing to lose in that last game against the Jags.  Yet they wouldn't put Kelly in.

 

I'm one of those who wants to be proven otherwise, but I'm not sure Eason is better than Kelly.  If we're basing it on their college careers (which is all we know about Eason at this point), then Kelly is the better QB.  He may not have the measurables, but he's more mobile.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Patience.  We might very well see Eason taking snaps toward the end of the season.  Right now JB is under a large contract and is the better backup option...to start a game.....in case Iron Man misses one.  So JB needs some reps now to be fresh enough able to come into a game or start.

 

I don't expect Eason to be activated on a game day until maybe mid-season.

 

Towards the end of the season, we'll begin to see more thought towards the future and Eason might get some work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm going to respectfully disagree, unless you're saying that's your opinion.  But I don't think it's what the coaches would do.

 

You saw last season when Jacoby looked horrible, we had nothing to lose in that last game against the Jags.  Yet they wouldn't put Kelly in.

I'm pretty sure they new early, and all along that Kelly would never play, unless it was an emergency. I'd bet they have given CK a "plan" to follow, and I'd also bet they were clear his chance at PT was little to none.

 

And aside from that, they just weren't going to do that to JB given he was under contract for the next year. Wouldn't have been a good look.

 

Now did I want to see CK late last year, absolutely. But I understand why I didn't.

7 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

I'm one of those who wants to be proven otherwise, but I'm not sure Eason is better than Kelly.  If we're basing it on their college careers (which is all we know about Eason at this point), then Kelly is the better QB.  He may not have the measurables, but he's more mobile.  

Well, either they really like CK, it's a favor from Reich to uncle Jim, or it's all about Covid. Or a combination of the 2 or all three. Without seeing them in preseason, we just don't know who's best. And yes, CK was obviously better in college, but that always doesn't translate to the NFL. Personally, I love the thought of CK sticking if he can keep his nose clean. I'm pretty sure at minimum he could be a good backup. He won that role in Denver after all, from a pretty picky Elway. Eason does have some great tools, and also could be very good if he can work some things out. We're simply not going to have any answers for a year or two.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

LOL!  Any logic involved with that answer?  Why not Kelly instead?  (Are you related to Eason?  If so, than I fully understand)

Well, its actually simple.  We've all seen what Jacoby can do against starting Defenses in the league.  IF Eason is supposed to be our future, I'd like to go ahead and get him out there, baptism by fire, in the event Rivers cannot go. Let him work out some kinks and hopefully, by the time he would take the reins in a future season, the game will have slowed down a tad for him.

 

As for why Eason over Kelly, its simple.  Coaches have Eason on the active 53 roster, Kelly is not. If the roles were reversed, I'd be saying the same thing for Kelly.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, csmopar said:

Well, its actually simple.  We've all seen what Jacoby can do against starting Defenses in the league.  IF Eason is supposed to be our future, I'd like to go ahead and get him out there, baptism by fire, in the event Rivers cannot go. Let him work out some kinks and hopefully, by the time he would take the reins in a future season, the game will have slowed down a tad for him.

 

As for why Eason over Kelly, its simple.  Coaches have Eason on the active 53 roster, Kelly is not. If the roles were reversed, I'd be saying the same thing for Kelly.

 

Understandable.  Would you feel the same way, assuming JB and Eason are both healthy, and we were in a playoff hunt?  Meaning that every game is important. 

 

I have nothing against Eason.  But no one can argue that he hasn't been tested in the NFL.  That needs to happen.  The real question is - when?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smonroe said:

 

Understandable.  Would you feel the same way, assuming JB and Eason are both healthy, and we were in a playoff hunt?  Meaning that every game is important. 

 

I have nothing against Eason.  But no one can argue that he hasn't been tested in the NFL.  That needs to happen.  The real question is - when?

I would. I'd even say if we were heading into the Superbowl, I'd take Eason over Brissett.  why? The unknown QB can give teams a fit, if that QB steps up to it.  And it sounds like Eason is putting that work in big time.  

 

Now, if the decision would be between Kelly and Brissett, that one for me gets more challenging. I think I'd still go Kelly but the fact that the coaches have him relegated to the PS speaks of less confidence in him than Eason. That said, I think I'd still go Kelly over Brissett.  Not because Brissett is worse than Kelly, but again, teams know Brissett can't or wont force it down field and isn't good at things.  Kelly i think is a much better scheme fit to Riech's scheme than Brissett. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lincolndefan said:

It's because of Ballard's man crush and maybe Reich's as well. Also, they don't want to hurt his feelings. Sorry, JB shouldn't be on this team let alone the back up QB. In JB's case, management has made their decisions with their heart instead of their head. I know the daily regulars, on this forum, will tell me how wrong i am but so be it. This is how i feel and have felt since last year. 

I agree to the nth degree. with this assessment.  JB is a distraction and there is something wierd about his pay, his status, him coming in as an option QB on a 4th down, etc.

 

If you are trying to develop a QB, what better time than garbage time v the woeful Jets?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shadow_Creek said:

Before i begin i just want to say that i'm not taking any shots at anyone but only keeping things real. That being said i dont get it. I just dont understand why Jacoby a person were not going to be resigning next season is our back up QB and not Eason. I know people say hes our best back up QB but again hes on his way out the door i mean why not have Eason a QB who is suppose to be our future on this team be the backup and have Brissett be the third stringer? i ask this because if you look at the packers you see Love as the backup aka the future starter, Tua on the dolphins is the backup for Fitz again future starter, then there's Hurts on the eagles behind wentz another one. These guys i mention wont start right away but at least they'll be ready when called upon i mean Herbert on the chargers has put up fine numbers these last two games and he never saw any Pre season action. So my question is why cant we have Eason be the one taking the snaps when were up by big margins instead of someone who wont be on the team after this season?

The quarterbacks you mentioned were all taken very high, and if you look around the league yes nowadays in the NFL when your drafted high your going to play soon, unless your Jordan Love in GB haha . 

 

Eason was taken in the 4th round, nobody knows if he is going to be are guy. Mahomes' and Wilson's late round quarterback studs don't just fall from the sky its VERY rare.

 

Also what if Rivers get hurt, Eason could very well not even be close to ready for NFL action. We know what we will get with Jacoby, a season could be salvaged with him.

 

Lastly how do you even know JB is on his way out. What if Rivers retires this year, your ready to put all the marbles on an unproven 4th round project quarterback? JB could have a furture with this team yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides the fact that Brissett is the veteran who knows the playbook and has a years worth of starting experience and can step in easily in case Rivers gets hurt there is one other thing.  It's only the 3rd game of the season.  We have already seen a number of QB's get hurt and are already missing starts.  There is plenty of time for more QB injuries to happen and to contending teams.  Each game that passes his cap hit goes down.  I don't know when the trade deadline is but at that time his cap hit might be affordable to a lot of teams especially if there is a QB injury to a contending team.  Letting him play in the 4th QTR is good for us and allows teams to see him play as well.  Who's to say Big Ben doesn't get hurt again or some other veteran QB on a contender.  So we let him play for us just in case and for other teams as well.  Once the trade deadline passes our situation could change.  Maybe Eason starts getting some reps.   I have already seen BR's list of players most likely to be traded before the deadline and he is on it and in the top 10.  To me it makes sense to play him in the 4th QTR if possible at least until the deadline passes.  Then it depends on where we are in the race and what will be our strategy going forward with a QB that will not be with us next year.  Just a different thought on the topic.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I would. I'd even say if we were heading into the Superbowl, I'd take Eason over Brissett.  why? The unknown QB can give teams a fit, if that QB steps up to it.  And it sounds like Eason is putting that work in big time.  

 

Now, if the decision would be between Kelly and Brissett, that one for me gets more challenging. I think I'd still go Kelly but the fact that the coaches have him relegated to the PS speaks of less confidence in him than Eason. That said, I think I'd still go Kelly over Brissett.  Not because Brissett is worse than Kelly, but again, teams know Brissett can't or wont force it down field and isn't good at things.  Kelly i think is a much better scheme fit to Riech's scheme than Brissett. 

 

If that ever happened, you'd either be the smartest coach since Lombardi, or run out of town on a rail, depending on how things turn out.

 

You know, realistically, that would never happen though.  As we saw last season, no matter how bad JB looked, they wouldn't put Kelly in.  Even when the game was meaningless.  (Unless they purposely wanted to tank that JAX game.  In that case, it worked well).  But overall, coaches are conservative and will go with an experienced player unless that rookie is wowing people in practice.  It even took a year with Mahomes on the bench, right?

 

I think we know why they put Swag on the PS instead of Eason.  Very small chance anyone is going to claim him.  Whereas, someone would take a chance on a free 4th rounder with potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smonroe said:

 

If that ever happened, you'd either be the smartest coach since Lombardi, or run out of town on a rail, depending on how things turn out.

 

You know, realistically, that would never happen though.  As we saw last season, no matter how bad JB looked, they wouldn't put Kelly in.  Even when the game was meaningless.  (Unless they purposely wanted to tank that JAX game.  In that case, it worked well).  But overall, coaches are conservative and will go with an experienced player unless that rookie is wowing people in practice.  It even took a year with Mahomes on the bench, right?

 

I think we know why they put Swag on the PS instead of Eason.  Very small chance anyone is going to claim him.  Whereas, someone would take a chance on a free 4th rounder with potential.

All very true. Can't dispute it. But you asked what I'd do.  I'd take that gamble I really would.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

I agree he wasn't "good", but he really wasn't asked to do a lot. His job was to just be safe, run clock, and not turn the ball over.

 

That said, I'm not a fan of the in-game "packages" for JB. He's not good enough in any one phase to constitute a package. His best quality is he's big and hard to bring down. The only time I can see a use, is goal line or XX and inches sneak.

 

Sounds similar to some of the recent criticism I've seen of the Saints and how they're using Hill. 

 

I'm struggling to think of when a gadget/starter QB type combo has worked consistently outside of a few isolated plays. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, csmopar said:

All very true. Can't dispute it. But you asked what I'd do.  I'd take that gamble I really would.  

 

Sure, I'd do a lot of crazy things too if my multi-million dollar coaching career weren't on the line.  I think you're answer would be different if you were really the HC.

 

But hey, we don't see practices.  He may be tearing it up there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're serious about trying to shop JB in the future, then you gotta get him some more exposure this year to remind other teams he's available. Teams like the Broncos would eat him up at this point with how desperate their situation is. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...