Backup Quarterback Confusion...

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, Smonroe said:

 

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.

honestly, if i were a coach and had made millions already, i wouldn't care.  I'm gonna go with what i think will work. I think the gap between Brissett and Eason is simply in age.  

[SteelCityColt]

1 minute ago, RollerColt said:

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. 

 

I can see we might be able to move him to a team in desperate need this season. They only eat the contract for a year and he's viable, if not a rising tide, as a starter. 

 

Though, if you were a team with your starting QB done for the year, or without a viable QB, wouldn't you have half an eye on the draft? Or are you thinking someone would bring him in as a stopgap for a few games?

[Myles]

4 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

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. 

I think his value is gone.   Maybe a late round pick, maybe not.  

[RollerColt]

2 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I can see we might be able to move him to a team in desperate need this season. They only eat the contract for a year and he's viable, if not a rising tide, as a starter. 

 

Though, if you were a team with your starting QB done for the year, or without a viable QB, wouldn't you have half an eye on the draft? Or are you thinking someone would bring him in as a stopgap for a few games?

It really depends on who is out. If it's a QB who's future overall is in doubt then by all means look to the draft. But if it's a young decent QB (like potentially Lock?) then perhaps they look at someone like JB. Remember that usually when a team does so poorly they're able to draft a superstar QB, that whole regime ends up getting replaced. So for now, the current regime will be doing everything they can to win so they don't get fired.

[Superman]

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 is if your starter has an iffy injury situation.

 

Since the reason for having a backup QB dressed on game day is to have someone ready to take over in case your starter goes down, isn't it reasonable that QB2 is Jacoby Brissett? He's the backup QB for a reason. 

 

So unless the coach is able to predict that you'll be winning by four scores in the fourth quarter, and that your starter will not go down during the game, it's hard to project a situation in which your third string QB is going to be active on game day. And if he's not active, he can't play in a blowout in the fourth quarter.

 

Case closed.

 

Also, it's good for JB to get a few series on the field, especially this year. He had no preseason, just like everybody else. If he has to actually do his job and take over for Rivers at some point, it's better that he had a couple drives at some point this year.

 

Lastly, I don't understand what the rush is to get Eason on the field. I'd love to see him get some snaps here and there, but there's no reason to force it. They drafted him to sit behind Rivers and JB this year. It's unlikely that he'll be active unless Rivers or JB are hurt going into game day. 

[RollerColt]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

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 is if your starter has an iffy injury situation.

 

Since the reason for having a backup QB dressed on game day is to have someone ready to take over in case your starter goes down, isn't it reasonable that QB2 is Jacoby Brissett? He's the backup QB for a reason. 

 

So unless the coach is able to predict that you'll be winning by four scores in the fourth quarter, and that your starter will not go down during the game, it's hard to project a situation in which your third string QB is going to be active on game day. And if he's not active, he can't play in a blowout in the fourth quarter.

 

Case closed.

 

Also, it's good for JB to get a few series on the field, especially this year. He had no preseason, just like everybody else. If he has to actually do his job and take over for Rivers at some point, it's better that he had a couple drives at some point this year.

 

Lastly, I don't understand what the rush is to get Eason on the field. I'd love to see him get some snaps here and there, but there's no reason to force it. They drafted him to sit behind Rivers and JB this year. It's unlikely that he'll be active unless Rivers or JB are hurt going into game day. 

We have seen time and time again situations where developing QBs get rushed into playing too early and it ends up being a detriment to their growth. As you have said, there's simply no reason to rush him into a game this year. 

[stitches]

Because we are in a win-now mode and Reich and Ballard feel like Jacoby gives them the best chance to win in case Rivers gets injured and you have to put a backup in the game. It's really that simple. 

[JMichael557]

If JB is viewed as a better QB then Eason at this point then that is a problem. 

[EastStreet]

56 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

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. 

Yep. Just not a fan of the combo stuff. I'd be closer to supportive if JB was Hill-like though. At least Hill is involved in other parts of the O, so it's not super duper type obvious always when he's in.

[Superman]

33 minutes ago, JMichael557 said:

If JB is viewed as a better QB then Eason at this point then that is a problem. 

 

JB is a better QB than Eason at this point.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

JB is a better QB than Eason at this point.

I am skeptical of that lol. 

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I am skeptical of that lol. 

Didn't you think Jacoby is out QB of the future for like... most of last season? How much play have you seen of Eason on an NFL field in a real game? I don't even know how you can be skeptical about that?  

 

43 minutes ago, JMichael557 said:

If JB is viewed as a better QB then Eason at this point then that is a problem. 

Why is this a problem? Rookie QBs generally are not great and they need work and schooling into pro football. Especially 4th round QBs. This is especially true when you have a season with shortened off-season program. I don't think Jacoby being better than Eason is a problem. All the reports about Eason's development are great and I'd evaluate him on his own merits and on his own development curve rather than putting him against solid vets that have multiple seasons starting in the league(even if not at great level). I'm good with easing Eason(pun intended) into the league and not forcing him in play when he's not ready and putting him as our QB2 behind Rivers is asking for trouble of precisely that kind. 

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I am skeptical of that lol. 

 

What evidence do you have to suggest that Eason is better than JB, right now?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What evidence do you have to suggest that Eason is better than JB, right now?

I don’t I was mainly joking because Jacoby looked like he was doing the same things Sunday he did last season. 

[CurBeatElite]

2 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

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

He was 2-4 and one of his passes was dropped.  He was playing behind a backup OL.  How was he bad?  He showed ability to move around in the pocket and actually put some touch on his throws (the one to Pittman showed more touch than I saw almost all of last year).  He should have been 3/4 and mostly he was handing the ball off behind a backup OL... 

 

___________________________________--

To the OP.

 

Simple, the Colts don't think Eason is ready yet.  And we're in a 'win now' mode.  We're not in a rebuild mode like the Dolphins or the Chargers.  If Rivers were to go down for a few games, Brissett gives us the best chance to win, and the coaches may not think Eason is ready yet to go in and get his ego bruised by the NFL.  If Rivers went down for the season next week, my guess would be they'd let Jacoby have the reigns and if we lost several games in a row, they'd hand the torch to Eason.... otherwise, Jacoby is arguably the best back up in the NFL and he showed last year he could keep us competitive and win some games even with a depleted roster.  Ballard didn't spend $25 mil on Rivers, trade for Buckner, sign Rhodes, etc. etc. with the intent of not making a deep playoff run this year.  He's missed the playoffs in 2 of his 3 years here.  Reich's gone 1 for 2.  Those guys will likely be 'put on the hot seat' if they don't take us to the playoffs this year, and long story short, if Rivers were to go down for a game or two, we're better off with Jacoby.  With the way the AFC South (and entire AFC) is, the AFC South (and wildcard) will likely come down to just a single game or two, so we can't afford to experiment with a rookie (say Rivers misses a game to CoVID or concussion protocol..... if Rivers blew his shoulder out next week, then turning to Eason would be more logical if we lost a few games with Jacoby and were out of the playoff hunt).  

[Yoshinator]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What evidence do you have to suggest that Eason is better than JB, right now?

There is no evidence Eason is better than JB. There is evidence that JB couldn't lead us to the playoffs when starting the entire season in 2017 and 2019 though. So I wouldn't trust him personally for more than a game or two. If Rivers got hurt next week and was out for the season, I would start an unknown Eason for the year instead of a JB where we have seen him be bad one year and mediocre the other for an entire season.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, JMichael557 said:

If JB is viewed as a better QB then Eason at this point then that is a problem. 

I disagree.   A veteran backup QB being better than a rookie without a preseason is a problem to you?   Perhaps if we had a full training camp and preseason, Eason could have been better at this point.  

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

There is no evidence Eason is better than JB. There is evidence that JB couldn't lead us to the playoffs when starting the entire season in 2017 and 2019 though. So I wouldn't trust him personally for more than a game or two. If Rivers got hurt next week and was out for the season, I would start an unknown Eason for the year instead of a JB where we have seen him be bad one year and mediocre the other for an entire season.

 

That's why he's a backup. But if we needed him for a few games, he's good enough for us to have a chance. That's what can be expected of a backup.

 

If Rivers was out for the year, I'd want to see a plan to get to Eason at some point this season, but I wouldn't be throwing him out there right away. And since Rivers isn't hurt at the moment -- knock on every piece of wood -- I'm not that concerned about whether Eason gets a few snaps in garbage time in Week 3.

[RollerColt]

6 minutes ago, Myles said:

I disagree.   A veteran backup QB being better than a rookie without a preseason is a problem to you?   Perhaps if we had a full training camp and preseason, Eason could have been better at this point.  

It would have made a big difference having a full preseason and training camp for sure. But I still like the idea of having him sit this year. Make him hungry. Those who cannot handle adversity and being frustrated end up failing. But if he is truly committed, then he will use this year to show everyone that he's in for the long haul. That only comes from perseverance. 

[Superman]

27 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I don’t I was mainly joking because Jacoby looked like he was doing the same things Sunday he did last season. 

 

I agree, he was.

[JMichael557]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Didn't you think Jacoby is out QB of the future for like... most of last season? How much play have you seen of Eason on an NFL field in a real game? I don't even know how you can be skeptical about that?  

 

Why is this a problem? Rookie QBs generally are not great and they need work and schooling into pro football. Especially 4th round QBs. This is especially true when you have a season with shortened off-season program. I don't think Jacoby being better than Eason is a problem. All the reports about Eason's development are great and I'd evaluate him on his own merits and on his own development curve rather than putting him against solid vets that have multiple seasons starting in the league(even if not at great level). I'm good with easing Eason(pun intended) into the league and not forcing him in play when he's not ready and putting him as our QB2 behind Rivers is asking for trouble of precisely that kind. 

 

The days of QB's sitting behind the starter to learn are gone. Name a starting QB who in this first year was the third string QB who then became a major player. I have no problem with Eason learning behind Rivers. Heck Luck could have "learned" behind Peyton if we kept both but to be 3rd String does not bode well.  Eason apparently has some flawes that as a QB that makes him worst than JB. If so, what are they and how will they be fixed. If he is better the JB and is simply redshirting then that is silly.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, JMichael557 said:

The days of QB's sitting behind the starter to learn are gone.

 

No they aren't.

[RollerColt]

3 minutes ago, JMichael557 said:

 

The days of QB's sitting behind the starter to learn are gone. Name a starting QB who in this first year was the third string QB who then became a major player. I have no problem with Eason learning behind Rivers. Heck Luck could have "learned" behind Peyton if we kept both but to be 3rd String does not bode well.  Eason apparently has some flawes that as a QB that makes him worst than JB. If so, what are they and how will they be fixed. If he is better the JB and is simply redshirting then that is silly.

Well... There's that Tom Brady guy who was a 4th stringer for starters. Patrick Mahomes sat for most of his rookie year. Aaron Rodgers also sat his rookie year. 

 

Russell Wilson was slated to be a 3rd stringer until he beat out most of his competition. 

[PrincetonTiger]

Friendly reminder from TigerTown 

[Smonroe]

42 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Well... There's that Tom Brady guy who was a 4th stringer for starters. Patrick Mahomes sat for most of his rookie year. Aaron Rodgers also sat his rookie year. 

 

Russell Wilson was slated to be a 3rd stringer until he beat out most of his competition. 

 

...and someone will win the lottery with one ticket...

 

For every one of those guys, there are 10 QBs who were drafted early who bombed out.  Neither argument proves anything.

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, Smonroe said:

 

...and someone will win the lottery with one ticket...

 

For every one of those guys, there are 10 QBs who were drafted early who bombed out.  Neither argument proves anything.

... It does prove it's possible to win the lottery though, so you might as well try? 

 

You only have a 0% chance of being successful if you choose to do nothing. 

[Myles]

1 minute ago, RollerColt said:

... It does prove it's possible to win the lottery though, so you might as well try? 

 

You only have a 0% chance of being successful if you choose to do nothing. 

An argument can be made either way.   If you asked everyone who has ever played the lottery if they would like their money back in exchange for their winnings, 99.999999% of people would take their money back.   Not the winners of course.    

 

I hope Eason has a better chance of being good than the lottery odds.

[Smonroe]

1 minute ago, RollerColt said:

... It does prove it's possible to win the lottery though, so you might as well try? 

 

You only have a 0% chance of being successful if you choose to do nothing. 

 

I don't want to go down that path (lottery)...but I'll say if you play your odds are about the same as 0%.

 

Back to the discussion.  I kind of lost your point.  I think you're saying that in some cases, a rookie QB can be really good.  I won't argue that (Luck, maybe Burrow).  But I see no indication that applies to Eason - yet.

[RollerColt]

6 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I don't want to go down that path (lottery)...but I'll say if you play your odds are about the same as 0%.

 

Back to the discussion.  I kind of lost your point.  I think you're saying that in some cases, a rookie QB can be really good.  I won't argue that (Luck, maybe Burrow).  But I see no indication that applies to Eason - yet.

I'm basically stating that, in my opinion (which means absolutely nothing), sitting Eason is a better idea than throwing him to the wolves and watching him suffer. His development this year should be more academic, to get up to speed. 

 

I am in no way saying he is the future at this time. 

8 minutes ago, Myles said:

An argument can be made either way.   If you asked everyone who has ever played the lottery if they would like their money back in exchange for their winnings, 99.999999% of people would take their money back.   Not the winners of course.    

 

I hope Eason has a better chance of being good than the lottery odds.

Agreed. And I'm one of those fools who does play the lottery from time to time. I haven't spent anything big though. 

[Myles]

7 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I don't want to go down that path (lottery)...but I'll say if you play your odds are about the same as 0%.

 

Back to the discussion.  I kind of lost your point.  I think you're saying that in some cases, a rookie QB can be really good.  I won't argue that (Luck, maybe Burrow).  But I see no indication that applies to Eason - yet.

I agree and I'm certain that there are many, many more cases of a rookie QB not being good or NFL ready in his rookie year.   Of course this season you have to take the lack of training camp time and no preseason into account.  

[Smonroe]

Just for grins I was wondering what the odds were of a drafted QB making it in the NFL.  Well, I'm not doing that research, but someone did an article of the 30 QBs drafted in the first round in ten years, from 2010 to 2019.

 

Out of those 30 FIRST ROUND QBs, I counted 14 starters.  And quite a few were busts, and are out of the league.

 

I thought that was interesting.  I'd love to see how many QBs were drafted, or made rosters as UDFA's in the last 10 years.  And how many of those are still around.

 

 

[Myles]

Just now, RollerColt said:

 

 

I am in no way saying he is the future at this time. 

Agreed. And I'm one of those fools who does play the lottery from time to time. I haven't spent anything big though. 

I play $5 a week in the office group.  20 people.  I figure in increases the odds a bit, but mostly because you always hear of a work group winning and I'd hate to be the guy who wasn't in it.   We've hit small amounts several times, but nothing noteworthy.   The winnings go back into the pot and we don't have to pay $5 for a few weeks.

 

How much would you say you have spent in total in your life.   My lifetime is probably at around $700.  

[JMichael557]

38 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Well... There's that Tom Brady guy who was a 4th stringer for starters. Patrick Mahomes sat for most of his rookie year. Aaron Rodgers also sat his rookie year. 

 

Russell Wilson was slated to be a 3rd stringer until he beat out most of his competition. 

First of all I apprecate the discussion. Patrick Mahomes sat for the first year but he was good enough to play if need be they just decided to set him. Same with Aaron Rogers who was playing behind Brett Farve. None were behind JB. As for Brady he started out 4th string but worked up to starter before the year was out. I have no problem with Eason starting out as 3rd string. But he should show enough to pass JB or that is a problem that tells me he is not progressing. 

[GoColts8818]

Because the Colts are still playing for THIS year.  So Jacoby is going to be the active backup in case Rivers gets hurt because he’s their next best QB.

 

As for why they didn’t play Eason up big its because Eason wasn’t active.  So playing him wasn’t an option.

[RollerColt]

49 minutes ago, Myles said:

I play $5 a week in the office group.  20 people.  I figure in increases the odds a bit, but mostly because you always hear of a work group winning and I'd hate to be the guy who wasn't in it.   We've hit small amounts several times, but nothing noteworthy.   The winnings go back into the pot and we don't have to pay $5 for a few weeks.

 

How much would you say you have spent in total in your life.   My lifetime is probably at around $700.  

I'd say it's well under $500 for me. I've won a few decent returns in the past. Nothing shocking, but pretty good. 

[CanuckColt]

7 hours ago, Smonroe said:

If Rivers were to get hurt in a game, do you really want Eason in there?  

I would want Chad Kelly in there...he is wayyyy better than Dinky-Dunk Brissett.

 

[RollerColt]

42 minutes ago, JMichael557 said:

First of all I apprecate the discussion. Patrick Mahomes sat for the first year but he was good enough to play if need be they just decided to set him. Same with Aaron Rogers who was playing behind Brett Farve. None were behind JB. As for Brady he started out 4th string but worked up to starter before the year was out. I have no problem with Eason starting out as 3rd string. But he should show enough to pass JB or that is a problem that tells me he is not progressing. 

You got me there. Though I think it's still early. You never know, Eason could outwork JB for that backup role before the season ends. And we could end up trading JB to a needy team before its all said and done. 

 

There's still time for Eason is my main point, but I'm fine with him sitting this year. 

[CanuckColt]

4 minutes ago, CanuckColt said:

I would want Chad Kelly in there...he is wayyyy better than Dinky-Dunk Brissett.

Good/great QBs make those around him better.

Brissett relies upon those around him to make him better.

 

[GoColts8818]

Some people are having a hard time accepting that the Colts don’t hate Jacoby as much as they do and aren’t looking to get ride of him at every turn.

[PuntersArePeopleToo]

7 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?

Tim Boyle is the backup for the Packers, Love is 3rd string too and he doesn't dress either