Backup Quarterback Confusion...

[Superman]

58 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yep. Pride and taking things personal on a forum thread is a thing you get sucked into before realizing it is happening. We have had hundreds of threads where you see a poster trying so hard to convince the others to see it their way that they forget the practical possibility of just agreeing to disagree and move on. If out of 40 posts on a page, I have 10 posts at least going back and forth, chances are that I am getting way too caught up in every difference of opinion and rebuttal. That would be a good time for me to think, stop and move on!!!  

 

Smarter man than I am...

[Nickster]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think the major point of difference there is that, whether you're knocking on the door of SB contention or not, an NFL staff still wants a backup QB that they think can give them a chance to win a couple games if the starter is out for a month or so. For all his faults, JB did that in 2017 (2-2 in his first two starts, two weeks after joining the team, with a bad coaching staff), and in 2019 (5-2 before he got hurt). 

 

I think there's also a difference in approach from fans/media, and real teams. Fans/media size up a team right away, and if they categorize the team as being anything less than a contender, they feel like the team should commit to developing a young QB asap. It's important for the Colts to find the next guy, but they obviously feel like they have a shot this year. So they value having a backup QB who can hold the fort, if necessary.

 

The importance of holding the fort vs developing a young QB is something that probably varies from team to team. This year, and for this team, I think holding the fort is more important. 

 

 

It's possible that something about the JB situation doesn't sit well with some of the players on the team. I don't think there's any evidence to support that theory.

 

I think the AV situation in 2019 is far different than the JB situation in 2019 and 2020. I don't agree with categorizing the treatment of JB as "special treatment." He got a contract, didn't live up to the value of the contract, but still has value to this team this year, so he's still on the roster.

 

The idea that a group of guys who have been pretty openly supportive of JB for the past year would sour on him because they called a red zone play for him in the opener -- especially in a year with no preseason -- just seems far fetched. Especially since no one has said anything negative about JB to this point.

 

And yes, it's rare that demoted starters, particularly at QB, stay on the team for another season after they've been replaced. But 2020 is different, and so far there's no evidence that the situation has been a problem in the locker room. I'm not anticipating a problem there, especially if Rivers plays well enough and the team is winning games.

Fair points.  

[Nickster]

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Peyton Manning 2015.

Dude Manning wasn't on any team in 2016. 

[Nickster]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Ballard and Reich said they brought in kickers all season long to test them against AV, and that AV won every competition he was up against.   
 

Hey,  it sucks that AV couldn’t deliver anymore in real games.   But I don’t think the GM or the HC were lying.  They put their trust in the greatest kicker of all-time.   That’s not a radical thing to do.  

 

I think most  NFL people would say that he put his trust in a fairly obviously washed up middle aged kicker, who had been in obvious decline for a couple years and then the guy they brought in didn't miss a kick if I remember right.

 

It seems liek they were "wrong" in their assessment of AV. I'm big fans of Ballard and Reich, but I would have rather seen a more business lik erather than emotional treatment of AV.

[Smonroe]

7 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Dude Manning wasn't on any team in 2016. 

 

That's not how you worded the question.  Manning was demoted in 15, remained on the team, and eventually started.

 

You may have meant the next year, but that's not what you said...dude.

[Nickster]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

I've always thought that when people say stuff like - "We are not ready to compete for a Superbowl this year" they are jumping off too soon.  Really every team in the AFC except the Chiefs and Ravens could say that.  But the truth is that the preseason favorite doesn't always win it all.  I think every team that can will make the playoffs can win the Superbowl.  The Titans got pretty close to making it last year.  I think when you are a good enough team to make the playoffs, you should play out the season as though you want to do what you can for this year, not for next.  

 

I do understand what you are saying here for the most part.  And theoretically I guess any given Sunday.

 

But I don't think the Titans were that close to actually beating the Cheifs and it's hard to imagine how they could barring a Mahomes injury.  They got absolutely boatraced after their initial lead.  But I do understand what you are saying here.

 

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Smonroe said:

 

That's not how you worded the question.  Manning was demoted in 15, remained on the team, and eventually started.

 

You may have meant the next year, but that's not what you said...dude.

OK.  I had been talking about bringing a guy back the next year in a couple of earlier posts.  I don't recall a high dollar demoted guy staying with the team the next year.

 

I can't think of a high dollar guy who was cut in the middle of the year after losing his job, so I wasn't attempting to say that.

[Myles]

57 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I do understand what you are saying here for the most part.  And theoretically I guess any given Sunday.

 

But I don't think the Titans were that close to actually beating the Cheifs and it's hard to imagine how they could barring a Mahomes injury.  They got absolutely boatraced after their initial lead.  But I do understand what you are saying here.

 

But they had a shot.  They were leading the game at one point as well.  Ended up losing 35-24.  A couple of bounces here and there and it could have happened.   Like you said, an injury could change everything.  

[Nickster]

14 minutes ago, Myles said:

But they had a shot.  They were leading the game at one point as well.  Ended up losing 35-24.  A couple of bounces here and there and it could have happened.   Like you said, an injury could change everything.  

I think the were up 24 or 21 to nothing if I remember right.

 

I'm with you on that to a point, but I also think that you have to be forward looking and develop for the future.  It is very difficult to do.  Most teams are going to have to "go for it" when the time comes.  Sometimes doing that too early can ruin a franchise.  I think Houston is headed downhill (could be wrong) after "going for it" and I think they could be in pretty bad shape in the future.  I think Minnesota is another team that is heading in this direction.  The Bears signing of Mack looked good at the time, but now, maybe they jumped the gun a little. Whatever the case, it is a very difficult job running an NFL franchise and staying in contention, especially when your QB situation is not set for the future.  (I am all for Rivers, just saying he's old.)

 

That again is one thing that O Bill and the Patriots have been able to do for 2 decades, that no one else can do.  Stay in contention for the actual title while constantly rebuildling and retooling.  I think this is aided by a apparantly exclusively bottom line type of attitude overall. 

 

 

[Myles]

10 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I think the were up 24 or 21 to nothing if I remember right.

 

I'm with you on that to a point, but I also think that you have to be forward looking and develop for the future.  It is very difficult to do.  Most teams are going to have to "go for it" then the time comes.  Sometimes doing that too early can ruin a franchise.  I think Houston is headed downhill (could be wrong) after "going for it" and I think they could be in pretty bad shape in the future.  I think Minnesota is another team that is heading in this direction.  The Bears signing of Mack looked good at the time, but now, maybe they jumped the gun a little. Whatever the case, it is a very difficult job running an NFL franchise and staying in contention, especially when your QB situation is not set for the future.  (I am all for Rivers, just saying he's old.)

 

 

 

I think if you feel you have a playoff caliber team, you should go for it.   Not meaning putting yourself in salary cap trouble, just making decisions based on what is best for that season.  I'm not a fan of Brissetts, not by a long shot.  But he would give us the better chance of winning if Rivers went out for a game or 2.  That would be the best call for this year.   Maybe Reich would have him on a short leash, but he would be the better option to start.   Totally different if we are 4-8 at the time of a Rivers injury.  Then it would be a waste to start Brissett and not Eason because we would be looking at the future.  

 

On Houston, I think it's a different issue.  It's poor decisions by a poor GM.  

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think if you feel you have a playoff caliber team, you should go for it.   Not meaning putting yourself in salary cap trouble, just making decisions based on what is best for that season.  I'm not a fan of Brissetts, not by a long shot.  But he would give us the better chance of winning if Rivers went out for a game or 2.  That would be the best call for this year.   Maybe Reich would have him on a short leash, but he would be the better option to start.   Totally different if we are 4-8 at the time of a Rivers injury.  Then it would be a waste to start Brissett and not Eason because we would be looking at the future.  

 

You could be right.  I think the Colts are in a fairly unique situation.  They are young everywhere basically but QB.  It's really a complex situation. 

 

And I believe with Brisset on the game or two thing, it depends.  To hold a lead or to win a tight game witha low scoring team, he probably gives you a better shot.  Coming in a game down big or against a juggernaut offense, I would try just about anyone else.

 

 

[Four2itus]

I think it is worth repeating, there is probably zero back up QB confusion in the Colts complex. However, there is a wee bit of denial here, about that.

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Four2itus said:

I think it is worth repeating, there is probably zero back up QB confusion in the Colts complex. However, there is a wee bit of denial here, about that.

Well I don't really think the debate is about what the Colts complex thinks is it?  It's germaine to some of the discussion but I don't think it's the main topic of discussion. I mean there would be no discussion of anything if that was all we were going on.   

 

I think the question in this the thread is Should JB be the backup? 

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

You could be right.  I think the Colts are in a fairly unique situation.  They are young everywhere basically but QB.  It's really a complex situation. 

 

 

If we are out of the playoff hunt and Brissett still gets the playing time, I will be upset like the meaningless games last season where Kelly should have lead a couple series.  

But as of now it has to be Brissett behind Rivers.  Mostly just because Eason is a rookie QB and the record for rookie QB's in their first couple NFL starts is not good.  Brissett is a .500 QB which is not good, but it is OK in a backup role.  

[Myles]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

 

 

I think the question in this the thread is Should JB be the backup? 

Did we reach an agreement that, for this season, Brissett should be the backup as long as the team is in playoff contention?  

[Nickster]

Just now, Myles said:

Did we reach an agreement that, for this season, Brissett should be the backup as long as the team is in playoff contention?  

 

I honestly don't think he should be Myles.  Just my opinion though.  

 

Simply put, the Colts ain't good enough this year IMHO and I am more concerned personally with setting this franchise up with a QB that has a future right now.    Plus I really dont' think JB has much at all to offer on the field and if you include 2017 he is a sub 500 QB by a long shot woh was terrible downt the stretch last year when we were in contention.

[BeanDiasucci]

Hey, lookee what I just found: https://forums.colts.com/ignore/

[Myles]

39 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

I honestly don't think he should be Myles.  Just my opinion though.  

 

Simply put, the Colts ain't good enough this year IMHO and I am more concerned personally with setting this franchise up with a QB that has a future right now.    Plus I really dont' think JB has much at all to offer on the field and if you include 2017 he is a sub 500 QB by a long shot woh was terrible downt the stretch last year when we were in contention.

You don't feel the Colts can make the playoffs?  If they can make the playoffs, Brissett is the better choice as the backup because the other option is a 4th round rookie with no preseason experience.  

I call Brissett a .500 QB mostly because so many of his games are close games and just playing the odds a team should win half their close games.   I give him somewhat of a pass in 2017 as he was thrust into the starter role unprepared.  

[Nickster]

25 minutes ago, Myles said:

You don't feel the Colts can make the playoffs?  If they can make the playoffs, Brissett is the better choice as the backup because the other option is a 4th round rookie with no preseason experience.  

I call Brissett a .500 QB mostly because so many of his games are close games and just playing the odds a team should win half their close games.   I give him somewhat of a pass in 2017 as he was thrust into the starter role unprepared.  

I think they will even probably make the playoffs.  They should unless PR gets hurt.  But I think they are a year or two away from being able to truly contend.  Some of these guys are going to hate on this too, but I think Mack's injury is going to prove to be pretty damaging  for the Colts O against good teams.

 

The franchise still has about what 5 weeks until the schedule gets difficult, so it will be a couple of months at least until we really know what we have in Indy.

 

Hey I respect what you are saying.  I just don't think JB has much to offer.

 

[Four2itus]

53 minutes ago, BeanDiasucci said:

Hey, lookee what I just found: https://forums.colts.com/ignore/

Yep, used it for some time. Unfortunately, you still see the quotes. However, point taken. 

[Dogg63]

20 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Yep, used it for some time. Unfortunately, you still see the quotes. However, point taken. 

Yep, and when they become a mod it overrides the ignore function.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Nickster said:

 

I think most  NFL people would say that he put his trust in a fairly obviously washed up middle aged kicker, who had been in obvious decline for a couple years and then the guy they brought in didn't miss a kick if I remember right.

 

It seems liek they were "wrong" in their assessment of AV. I'm big fans of Ballard and Reich, but I would have rather seen a more business lik erather than emotional treatment of AV.

Remember...   everything looks obvious in hindsight.   Everything looks obvious after the fact.    Very little is obvious in real time. 
 

I think most NFL people would trust the judgement of Ballard and Reich.   They have great credibility. 
 

And it’s just your opinion, based again on ZERO EVIDENCE that they ran an emotional tryout and not a business like tryout.  
 

And the kicker they brought in, the same guy Blankenship beat out, the same guy who is on the Bears PS right now, did miss a kick with the Colts.   Not many, but he did miss.  And what difference does it make?   AV beat everyone he was challenged by during the week.   
 

Remember,  hindsight is 20-20.