Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

NFL has become "short leash zone" for NFL QB 1st rounders


Recommended Posts

Haskins looks like the latest 1st rounder getting pushed out after only a short time. I thought Josh Rosen got a short leash, it seems it's common now. Looks like the Jets may be done with Darnold, the Giants Danial Jones is getting heat as well. Apparently the new rule is, you have to show it within 2 years or you're done..  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone can be Patrick Mahomes or Lamar Jackson. But then, unless you pair them with good coaches that can maximize their talent, those coaches will go back to their comfort zones.

 

For every Andy Reid that gets the ceiling out of Mahomes or John Harbaugh that caters his offense to a guy like Lamar, there is a Jeff Fisher that ruins a Vince Young or Mike Shanahan that ruins an RGIII or Adam Gase that ruins a Sam Darnold. Sam Darnold is not a Jamarcus Russell, neither is Dwayne Haskins, but if your mind is already made up like Ron Rivera hinted regarding Jeff Allen, there is only so much a 1st or 2nd year QB can do.

 

I would venture to say that misuse of a QB's skills by not hiring the right GM and/or coaching staff to put around them happens close to 60-70% of the time and that has led to several failed QBs, IMO, that may have succeeded if the coaches were more willing to adapt. Then you have bad decisions w.r.t free agent QBs like Nick Foles and Kirk Cousins that hamstring GMs and trickle down to coaches as well. 

 

Say what you want, when you see patience and stability provided by franchises like the Steelers, Packers, Colts, Patriots etc., it gives you a better appreciation of ownership that trickles down eventually to the GM and head coaches.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ColtJax said:

Haskins looks like the latest 1st rounder getting pushed out after only a short time. I thought Josh Rosen got a short leash, it seems it's common now. Looks like the Jets may be done with Darnold, the Giants Danial Jones is getting heat as well. Apparently the new rule is, you have to show it within 2 years or you're done..  

i agree. I was thinking this when i read about Haskins.  I mean, Peyton freaking manning didn't become the Peyton we now know in his rookie year.  He threw a TON of interceptions that year and we were 3-13.  Then again in 2001, It really wasn't until 2003 where he really started dominating. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, csmopar said:

i agree. I was thinking this when i read about Haskins.  I mean, Peyton freaking manning didn't become the Peyton we now know in his rookie year.  He threw a TON of interceptions that year and we were 3-13.  Then again in 2001, It really wasn't until 2003 where he really started dominating. 

Yes he did throw 28 interceptions but he did throw for 3,739 YDs and 26 TDs, 

If I am not mistaken those were all rookie QB records. 

Year 1 to year 2 was 3-13 to 13-3 was also a record if I am not mistaken. 

So really he started dominating in 1999 if you look at it from that sense. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Yes he did throw 28 interceptions but he did throw for 3,739 YDs and 26 TDs, 

If I am not mistaken those were all rookie QB records. 

Year 1 to year 2 was 3-13 to 13-3 was also a record if I am not mistaken. 

So really he started dominating in 1999 if you look at it from that sense. 

 

right, but my point was that teams en masse aren't giving these guys time to learn and improve.  Looking back, it seems to have started right around the 2012 draft. It seems the once Luck came in and blew things up, and we went from 2-14 to 11-5, then RG3 had that great rookie year, as did Ryan Wilson.  Since then, there's been a TON of QBs that have been picked high that have flamed out and been benched quickly. It seems like teams aren't willing to wait around for a QB to develop like they were just 2 decades ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, csmopar said:

right, but my point was that teams en masse aren't giving these guys time to learn and improve.  Looking back, it seems to have started right around the 2012 draft. It seems the once Luck came in and blew things up, and we went from 2-14 to 11-5, then RG3 had that great rookie year, as did Ryan Wilson.  Since then, there's been a TON of QBs that have been picked high that have flamed out and been benched quickly. It seems like teams aren't willing to wait around for a QB to develop like they were just 2 decades ago.

Who's Ryan Wilson?  You mean Russell Wilson?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

At least you didn't say Nancy Wilson. :D    :peek:

 

Or Quincy Wilson. :) 

 

I do think the Browns realized quickly they needed a HC with ownership and GM (including analytics department) buy in, not just a decision made based on what the QB prefers, like they did last year. I do think they have put enough good pieces around Baker Mayfield. Similarly, the Bills have been doing the same with Josh Allen too. You need a solid 3 years from a first round QB who you have for 5 years to see what you have before making decisions. On the contrary, Jets have gone the opposite way with Sam Darnold.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Or Quincy Wilson. :) 

 

I do think the Browns realized quickly they needed a HC with ownership and GM (including analytics department) buy in, not just a decision made based on what the QB prefers, like they did last year. I do think they have put enough good pieces around Baker Mayfield. Similarly, the Bills have been doing the same with Josh Allen too. You need a solid 3 years from a first round QB who you have for 5 years to see what you have before making decisions. On the contrary, Jets have gone the opposite way with Sam Darnold.

Sam Darnold may get another shot if Gase is fired. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Why did anybody think Haskins would be good?  That was a bad pick when it was made.

 

I disagree. He had played plenty from the pocket unlike other Ohio State passers like Terell Pryor or Braxton Miller or Troy Smith thus projecting well enough. 

 

The true question was - what kind of system was he going to and what kind of QB coaching was he going to get? 

 

https://thedraftnetwork.com/player/dwayne-haskins

 

https://www.pff.com/news/draft-2019-nfl-draft-profile-qb-dwayne-haskins-ohio-state

 

QBs tend to be over drafted, Haskins was drafted at No.15. Daniel Jones who went at No.6, in Baker Mayfield's words, hadn't done much in the college level either. It is truly hard to project and on top of it, the management needs to have a good plan in place to coach him up and maximize his strengths.

 

Lamar Jackson fell to No.32 for a reason, his passing prowess. John Harbaugh knew he could not make a pocket passer out of him, so he catered the offense to Lamar's strengths and is gradually working on his passing. Tim Tebow, late Round 1 pick, had his offense catered to by John Fox during that brief stint in 2011 as starter.

 

Lamar - OL was bottom 5 in being pressured in 2019, Lamar was able to hit guys by standing upright a little more and now they are top 10 or worse so far in 2020, and that is reflected in the passing numbers where Lamar is trying to throw on the run and cannot have as much time.

 

So many factors go into a rookie QB production. OL seems to be the singular biggest aspect that needs to be in place for a rookie QB w.r.t on the field support.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

I disagree. He had played plenty from the pocket unlike other Ohio State passers like Terell Pryor or Braxton Miller or Troy Smith thus projecting well enough. 

 

The true question was - what kind of system was he going to and what kind of QB coaching was he going to get? 

 

https://thedraftnetwork.com/player/dwayne-haskins

 

https://www.pff.com/news/draft-2019-nfl-draft-profile-qb-dwayne-haskins-ohio-state

 

QBs tend to be over drafted, Haskins was drafted at No.15. Daniel Jones who went at No.6, in Baker Mayfield's words, hadn't done much in the college level either. It is truly hard to project and on top of it, the management needs to have a good plan in place to coach him up and maximize his strengths.

 

Lamar Jackson fell to No.32 for a reason, his passing prowess. John Harbaugh knew he could not make a pocket passer out of him, so he catered the offense to Lamar's strengths and is gradually working on his passing. Tim Tebow, late Round 1 pick, had his offense catered to by John Fox during that brief stint in 2011 as starter.

 

Lamar - OL was bottom 5 in being pressured in 2019, Lamar was able to hit guys by standing upright a little more and now they are top 10 or worse so far in 2020, and that is reflected in the passing numbers where Lamar is trying to throw on the run and cannot have as much time.

 

So many factors go into a rookie QB production. OL seems to be the singular biggest aspect that needs to be in place for a rookie QB w.r.t on the field support.

 

I know Haskins was rated highly by almost everyone.  He struck me as not the guy you invest a first round pick in.  Needed more work.  Felt the same about Trubisky and Jones as well.  I'm not a football technician, but all three just struck me as needing more seasoning in an NFL offense.  Haskins was sort of just given the reins of a high powered strong college program from which he benfitted, whereas Trubisky's and Jones' college careers just seemed overrated given the programs they were in.

 

 OTOH, I thought the Mayfield, Darnold, and Allen picks were appropriate.  From a pure developmental standpoint, Allen was behind the curve but obviously had the attributes to turn into something special, so higher capital could be spent on him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haskins was a project, they knew that day 1. Why they would think he wouldn't struggle for awhile is puzzling. Danial Jones a Darnold are interesting. I think both can be very good QB. Both play behind HORRIBLE OL's and get killed every week. Neither has an quality receivers to throw to. Winston may be in a great position to cash in. He has all the talent in the world, just a .10c head. If I'm the Cowboy's I'd take a shot with Danold for $15 million on a 1 year prove it deal rather than spend 40 million a year for Dak who always seems to get them to 8-8..

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ColtJax said:

Haskins was a project, they knew that day 1. Why they would think he wouldn't struggle for awhile is puzzling. Danial Jones a Darnold are interesting. I think both can be very good QB. Both play behind HORRIBLE OL's and get killed every week. Neither has an quality receivers to throw to. Winston may be in a great position to cash in. He has all the talent in the world, just a .10c head. If I'm the Cowboy's I'd take a shot with Danold for $15 million on a 1 year prove it deal rather than spend 40 million a year for Dak who always seems to get them to 8-8..


Marcus Mariota, they gave him every chance and Haskins would love to have that kind of chance, IMO.

 

It could also be a case where they want Haskins to see things from the sidelines and learn a bit from a vet like Kyle Allen. Even Josh Allen had to take a brief break, albeit due to injury to observe things from the sidelines.

 

Agree with Daniel Jones and Darnold though I believe Darnold’s ceiling is higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way teams handle young QBs is almost criminal. They draft them based almost solely on potential, knowing they need to almost totally reconstruct the way they play to succeed in the NFL, then they rush them into action before they're ready, often behind bad offensive lines. Then the coach gets fired, then the next coach is like 'ehh, not my guy,' then the guy they just invested heavily in gets benched. A couple years later, the GM that drafted the QB gets fired, and the cycle starts over.

 

Part of it is that talented QBs aren't as hard to find now as they were ten years ago. But the real problem is that teams suck at developing QBs. 

 

Everyone isn't as good as Patrick Mahomes or Lamar Jackson, but you would think that seeing how the Chiefs and Ravens basically redshirted those two guys as rookies, then they won MVPs in their second years, it would seem that coaches/teams would be more disciplined in how they integrate young QBs. 

 

Then, coaches who do want to take some time with young guys often say dumb stuff, like Anthony Lynn. 

 

If -- and right now, this is a HUGE "if" -- the Colts see something in Eason, I still hope he doesn't come close to playing this season. 

 

BTW, not a defense of Haskins. But what can you expect from a guy in that situation?

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

The way teams handle young QBs is almost criminal. They draft them based almost solely on potential, knowing they need to almost totally reconstruct the way they play to succeed in the NFL, then they rush them into action before they're ready, often behind bad offensive lines. Then the coach gets fired, then the next coach is like 'ehh, not my guy,' then the guy they just invested heavily in gets benched. A couple years later, the GM that drafted the QB gets fired, and the cycle starts over.

 

Part of it is that talented QBs aren't as hard to find now as they were ten years ago. But the real problem is that teams suck at developing QBs. 

 

Everyone isn't as good as Patrick Mahomes or Lamar Jackson, but you would think that seeing how the Chiefs and Ravens basically redshirted those two guys as rookies, then they won MVPs in their second years, it would seem that coaches/teams would be more disciplined in how they integrate young QBs. 

 

Then, coaches who do want to take some time with young guys often say dumb stuff, like Anthony Lynn. 

 

If -- and right now, this is a HUGE "if" -- the Colts see something in Eason, I still hope he doesn't come close to playing this season. 

 

BTW, not a defense of Haskins. But what can you expect from a guy in that situation?

:scoregood:

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ColtJax said:

Haskins was a project, they knew that day 1. Why they would think he wouldn't struggle for awhile is puzzling. Danial Jones a Darnold are interesting. I think both can be very good QB. Both play behind HORRIBLE OL's and get killed every week. Neither has an quality receivers to throw to. Winston may be in a great position to cash in. He has all the talent in the world, just a .10c head. If I'm the Cowboy's I'd take a shot with Danold for $15 million on a 1 year prove it deal rather than spend 40 million a year for Dak who always seems to get them to 8-8..

Dak's only problem is he plays on the Cowboys. 

He has actually been playing very well but he can't score 50 points every game. He is leading the league in yardage so he can play. He is averaging 422.5 yards per game with only 3 interceptions for the season. 

I would take him on this team in a heartbeat. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Dak's only problem is he plays on the Cowboys. 

He has actually been playing very well but he can't score 50 points every game. He is leading the league in yardage so he can play. He is averaging 422.5 yards per game with only 3 interceptions for the season. 

I would take him on this team in a heartbeat. 

It's not "take him", it's take him at 40+ million a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ColtJax said:

It's not "take him", it's take him at 40+ million a year.

That is the going price for top notch QBs.

Lucks contract paid him close to 25 million per year signed in 2016. Had he still been playing his next contract (due in 2021) would have paid him that 40 million per year no doubt. 

The question remains is our team good enough or talented enough to win playoff games without a top notch QB? 

We are getting ready to see I guess? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Superman said:

The way teams handle young QBs is almost criminal. They draft them based almost solely on potential, knowing they need to almost totally reconstruct the way they play to succeed in the NFL, then they rush them into action before they're ready, often behind bad offensive lines. Then the coach gets fired, then the next coach is like 'ehh, not my guy,' then the guy they just invested heavily in gets benched. A couple years later, the GM that drafted the QB gets fired, and the cycle starts over.

 

Part of it is that talented QBs aren't as hard to find now as they were ten years ago. But the real problem is that teams suck at developing QBs. 

 

Everyone isn't as good as Patrick Mahomes or Lamar Jackson, but you would think that seeing how the Chiefs and Ravens basically redshirted those two guys as rookies, then they won MVPs in their second years, it would seem that coaches/teams would be more disciplined in how they integrate young QBs. 

 

Then, coaches who do want to take some time with young guys often say dumb stuff, like Anthony Lynn. 

 

If -- and right now, this is a HUGE "if" -- the Colts see something in Eason, I still hope he doesn't come close to playing this season. 

 

BTW, not a defense of Haskins. But what can you expect from a guy in that situation?

Will Ferrell Agree GIF
 

there are too many QB “Gurus” and most are not employed by teams

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 7:31 PM, ColtJax said:

Haskins looks like the latest 1st rounder getting pushed out after only a short time. I thought Josh Rosen got a short leash, it seems it's common now. Looks like the Jets may be done with Darnold, the Giants Danial Jones is getting heat as well. Apparently the new rule is, you have to show it within 2 years or you're done..  

It has a lot to do with the fast turn over of regimes nowadays. If the GM didn't draft you he has absolutely 0 ties to you. The new regime in Washington didn't draft Haskins. The regime in NY did not draft Darnold. Rosen by all accounts is just not NFL caliber quarterback, good on the Cardinals for being able to realize their mistake and move a quickly. Baker Mayfield even if the Browns succeed this is likely his last season in Cleveland because the new regime did not draft him. Many other examples i cant think of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rookie cap makes it a lot easier to get rid of these mistakes. In the old days a top 10 QB would be on the team for 4 years at least because of their signing bonus. Haskins got some good money, but not enough to throw him away if he's not a fit. Reports are that they're trying to trade him. What will they get for him? A 4th rounder?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 12:30 AM, PrincetonTiger said:

Will Ferrell Agree GIF
 

there are too many QB “Gurus” and most are not employed by teams

And a lot of those who have never played or coached either... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 11:38 PM, crazycolt1 said:

Dak's only problem is he plays on the Cowboys. 

He has actually been playing very well but he can't score 50 points every game. He is leading the league in yardage so he can play. He is averaging 422.5 yards per game with only 3 interceptions for the season. 

I would take him on this team in a heartbeat. 

 

Looking at his stats from last year and what he's done this year I tend to agree.  I'd take a shot on him if the Cowboys don't want him.

 

10th in the NFL in passer rating last year.  5th in QBR, 5th in yards per attempt, 2nd in yards, 4th in passing TD's, 20th in INT % (He had the 20th highest so being towards the bottom in this stat is good.)

 

Given those stats I actually find it kind of surprising that Dallas won't pay the man.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 9:46 PM, chad72 said:

Not everyone can be Patrick Mahomes or Lamar Jackson. But then, unless you pair them with good coaches that can maximize their talent, those coaches will go back to their comfort zones.

 

For every Andy Reid that gets the ceiling out of Mahomes or John Harbaugh that caters his offense to a guy like Lamar, there is a Jeff Fisher that ruins a Vince Young or Mike Shanahan that ruins an RGIII or Adam Gase that ruins a Sam Darnold. Sam Darnold is not a Jamarcus Russell, neither is Dwayne Haskins, but if your mind is already made up like Ron Rivera hinted regarding Jeff Allen, there is only so much a 1st or 2nd year QB can do.

 

I would venture to say that misuse of a QB's skills by not hiring the right GM and/or coaching staff to put around them happens close to 60-70% of the time and that has led to several failed QBs, IMO, that may have succeeded if the coaches were more willing to adapt. Then you have bad decisions w.r.t free agent QBs like Nick Foles and Kirk Cousins that hamstring GMs and trickle down to coaches as well. 

 

Say what you want, when you see patience and stability provided by franchises like the Steelers, Packers, Colts, Patriots etc., it gives you a better appreciation of ownership that trickles down eventually to the GM and head coaches.

 

 

My only problem with this is that if all this was true, I would expect more QB's to catch fire with other teams.  While Ryan Tannehill has done that for the most part the 1st rounders that busted with the teams that drafted them don't usually turn it around with another team.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

My only problem with this is that if all this was true, I would expect more QB's to catch fire with other teams.  While Ryan Tannehill has done that for the most part the 1st rounders that busted with the teams that drafted them don't usually turn it around with another team.  

 

True. However, most other teams that sign up a 1st rounder that has busted with their original team rarely give that 1st rounder a chance to be a starter with an open competition. It is different if there is no clear starter like with Matt Flynn and Tavaris Jackson with Seahawks when Russell Wilson was drafted and after 3 preseason games, Pete Carroll made the decision and never looked back.

 

Tannehill became a starter by accident for a few games when Mariota got injured and seized the opportunity. A guy like Christian Ponder, Jake Locker, or even Marcus Mariota - there is a good chance a coach sticks with their failing starter than give a previous failure a chance to start unless it is a case of injury. Then, there is the aspect of the back up not getting first team reps or any reps in some cases with key players. Brock Osweiler had better chemistry with #4 or #5 WRs or practice squad WRs because of that when he filled in for Peyton. Brock just had to do enough to win games with that vaunted D but then it was a HOF guy you are talking about, so Peyton got the job eventually back once he was healthy enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

True. However, most other teams that sign up a 1st rounder that has busted with their original team rarely give that 1st rounder a chance to be a starter with an open competition. It is different if there is no clear starter like with Matt Flynn and Tavaris Jackson with Seahawks when Russell Wilson was drafted and after 3 preseason games, Pete Carroll made the decision and never looked back.

 

Tannehill became a starter by accident for a few games when Mariota got injured and seized the opportunity. A guy like Christian Ponder, Jake Locker, or even Marcus Mariota - there is a good chance a coach sticks with their failing starter than give a previous failure a chance to start unless it is a case of injury. Then, there is the aspect of the back up not getting first team reps or any reps in some cases with key players. Brock Osweiler had better chemistry with #4 or #5 WRs or practice squad WRs because of that when he filled in for Peyton. Brock just had to do enough to win games with that vaunted D but then it was a HOF guy you are talking about, so Peyton got the job eventually back once he was healthy enough.

 

But don't most of them usually get a chance to play again due to injury at some point?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

But don't most of them usually get a chance to play again due to injury at some point?  

 

It takes guts for a coach to bench a starter who is playing well enough that has been paid like a starter and continue with a past failed project/unproven guy even if they did well for a few games because of the starter injury. Jim Harbaugh did it with Kaepernick over Alex Smith, and Bill Belichick did it with Brady over Bledsoe. Not many coaches do that even if the backup has done well in the few games they get a chance due to injury.

 

Mariota was still in his rookie contract, that was the perfect situation for Vrabel to stick with Tannehill, who was still a patient guy giving Mariota plenty of chances, made it easier because not much money was invested in Mariota. Say Carr gets injured in Oakland and Mariota does well for 2 or 3 games, and Carr is ready to come back, do you think Gruden would stick with Mariota? I doubt that. You have to factor that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

It takes guts for a coach to bench a starter who is playing well enough that has been paid like a starter and continue with a past failed project/unproven guy even if they did well for a few games. Jim Harbaugh did it with Kaepernick over Alex Smith, and Bill Belichick did it with Brady over Bledsoe. Not many coaches do that even if the backup has done well in the few games they get a chance due to injury.

 

Mariota was still in his rookie contract, that was the perfect situation for Vrabel to stick with Tannehill, who was still a patient guy giving Mariota plenty of chances, made it easier because not much money was invested in Mariota. Say Carr gets injured in Oakland and Mariota does well for 2 or 3 games, and Carr is ready to come back, do you think Gruden would stick with Mariota? I doubt that. You have to factor that.

 

It's been my experience that they don't do well in those games though.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

It's been my experience that they don't do well in those games though.  

 

History says otherwise. Matt Moore filled in well for Mahomes last year, Osweiler filled in well for Peyton, Kaepernick showed a ceiling Jim Harbaugh recognized, Brady showed a ceiling Belichick recognized, and Tannehill showed a ceiling Vrabel recognized, Minshew was very good for a few games in relief of Foles but one bad game forced the Jags to justify putting Foles back in, now he is back as starter. We all know the Kurt Warner story. This is just off the top of my head, I am sure we can find more if we dig deep enough.

 

Ultimately, it is up to the head coach and there are factors like the management and amount of money invested in the starter that all play into it, like it or not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality I'd rather have a QB flame out than be a decent QB. Someone that flames out you replace, it's quick and you move on. The Cardinals did that after 1 year, it worked out. A "decent" QB lingers on the team, always being too good to cut but not good enough to win big games. Sorta like a Andy Dalton type, good QB worth keeping, but as a quality back up..

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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This may be the best football interview I have ever seen.  Must see for Colts, Packers or any other football fan!   Rodgers is the most candid I've seen and he's really funny.      
    • Correct. And we need to win that game because if we lose, it is highly unlikely we win the last 5, but I think it is likely they win at least 3 since they play Hou. Jax and a floundering Det.  And they may even be favored against Cle.  That leaves GB for them to upset to sweep into the playoffs and could make it very tough for us to get in at all with our tie breaker status.  This is the more important than any further game this season.  Win and our path to the playoffs is so much more wide open.  But we will still likely need to win at least 3 games to get in unless TN craters somehow.  Those tiebreakers are really going to challenge us in wildcard scenarios.    I could see Hou winning one against us, they usually do and they are on a major upswing.  Their offense is no joke and they do not depend at all on the run so our run defense is less effective obviously.  Pitt and the Raiders are also no joke and both games are away.  This is a critical one if we hope to win the division. If we lose, finishing 9-7 is realistically still in play and I don't see TN losing 3 out of 5.  In fact, I don't see them losing more than 2 of 5.  If we win they'll likely have to win 4 of 5 or sweep to catch us for the division.  I called the Raiders game as being key to make the playoffs and go 10-6 before the season started. With a loss, the desperate WC tie breaker situation, that is especially true.  It's possible for a 10-6 team to miss the playoffs even with the extra team.  Cleveland will almost surely get 10 wins with their easy finish.  Baltimore is also likely.  (Their divisional matchups are really favorable this time around).  Then again maybe we'll sweep the season and get the #1 seed.  Pitt still has to play 5 current playoff teams in their final 6 and KC has to play 3.     Just speculation as always, but that is the fun of a football message board.  Go Colts!
    • ^This^   Another way to look at it is this:  considering the production that Ballard is getting out of his draft picks while they're still on their rookie contracts... why over-spend on re-signing anybody?   If Ballard can continue hitting on draft picks the way he has, then it's almost better to just keep accumulating draft picks, draft well, and let the young guys go out and make plays.   Let other teams over-spend on proven talent while Indy keeps providing an opportunity for young hungry players to prove their talent.   Save the money for slam-dunk moves like Buckner.
    • I bet you are 1000% wrong.   Nelson is the biggest name in the league at G, and it's not even close.  A "bad" Nelson (that gets called for ticky-tack holds that happen on every single NFL play) is still better than 90% of the guards in the NFL.   Your hot-take posts are getting very tiresome.  
    • They have contributed as much their rookie year as the entire group maybe by end of the season, but I doubt there's even a tiny chance of 2 all pros. Even 1 is a major stretch.  I am not sure we have any all pro's on the team since the most deserving one is Buckner (who I count as our first round pick in every way) has impact but no stats to wow anyone not intimately aware of his impact. If he misses this game we may painfully see how valuable.  But their collective impact has certainly added up. 4 starters and 2 solid special teamers in a so far playoff level team is quite a haul for any draft pick class in history.  It is at least adjacent to 2018, unless you don't count Buckner in any way.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...