Colts QB, the present, and the future (Merge)

[Chloe6124 9,014]

2 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Never trade away a pick when a once in a generation style QB comes out like Lawrence. 

 

If Giants and Jets finish top 2 bottom teams and both pass on Lawrence they will be the laughing stock of the league.

They need way more then a QB. Those teams are so void of talent. 

[Four2itus 4,704]

14 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Do you think the Chiefs care that they missed out on other positions after trading up for Mahomes?

Are you seriously comparing what the Chiefs gave up to get PM and what the Colts would have to give up to move to #1?

 

"K.C. traded the No. 27 overall pick, a third-round pick and their 2018 first-round selection to the Buffalo Bills to move up to No. 10 to select Mahomes."

 

Just for discussion sake, I believe the Colts are looking at a trade value from the "value chart" of at least 9000-10,000 points. The trade you referred to was worth less than 4000 points. Not trying to be argumentative, but I am trying to make a point. Those comparisons are not even close. 

 

NFL Value Chart

[rayski 191]

I don't know where will we draft and who will be eligible, I'm not interested in trading the farm for a Fields or Lawrence either, would be a mistake after these stud draft classes we've had the past 2 years, but if somehow on the low side of trades or even free agency, if we could get Darnold (and IF he isn't psychologically damaged by that organisation) I'd be very interested in that. Loads of ways he resembles Luck's style for me. 

[danlhart87 6,096]

30 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Are you seriously comparing what the Chiefs gave up to get PM and what the Colts would have to give up to move to #1?

 

"K.C. traded the No. 27 overall pick, a third-round pick and their 2018 first-round selection to the Buffalo Bills to move up to No. 10 to select Mahomes."

 

Just for discussion sake, I believe the Colts are looking at a trade value from the "value chart" of at least 9000-10,000 points. The trade you referred to was worth less than 4000 points. Not trying to be argumentative, but I am trying to make a point. Those comparisons are not even close. 

 

NFL Value Chart

My point is trading up is risky but its well worth the risk 

35 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

They need way more then a QB. Those teams are so void of talent. 

True but a great QB will completely help 

[Four2itus 4,704]

20 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

My point is trading up is risky but its well worth the risk 

True but a great QB will completely help 

To play devils advocate, would it be all that draft capital to get say.....one SB over the next 14 years?

 

I use that as an example of the "Great QB" because that is what transpired during our beloved PM's time here. 

[Thebrashandthebold 18]

23 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

My point is trading up is risky but its well worth the risk 

True but a great QB will completely help 

It won't help a team who isn't ready for one. The Colts took Luck when they had no offensive line to protect him and other short comings. A shortened career was a foregone conclusion when that happened in my opinion. They needed to wait two years to build an offensive line and be ready for a franchise QB.

 

[danlhart87 6,096]

3 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

To play devils advocate, would it be all that draft capital to get say.....one SB over the next 14 years?

 

I use that as an example of the "Great QB" because that is what transpired during our beloved PM's time here. 

There's no way of knowing how many SBs a QB could win. 

[Four2itus 4,704]

41 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

There's no way of knowing how many SBs a QB could win. 

That same logic could be used to choose a cheaper QB...because "There's no way of knowing how many SB's a QB could win".

 

Of course, if one was to say that the odds are better with a better QB.....than it is also true that the odds are worse with less draft capital to build a supporting cast around him after blowing the draft wad on that great QB.

 

Choose your logic?

[danlhart87 6,096]

1 minute ago, Four2itus said:

That same logic could be used to choose a cheaper QB...because "There's no way of knowing how many SB's a QB could win".

 

Of course, if one was to say that the odds are better with a better QB.....than it is also true that the odds are worse with less draft capital to build a supporting cast around him after blowing the draft wad on that great QB.

 

Choose your logic?

The odds are infinitely greater and it also depends on the team around you. Manning was the big reason Colts won his 1st but he wouldn't have a 2nd without Broncos D.

 

Thats what I like about Ballard he is slowly but surely changing the entire dynamic of this team.

 

He's taking a bottom dwelling OL and has improved it greatly. 

 

Adding Buckner was HUGE for this D as well as building the LBs.

 

I will admit his drafts for the most part have been stellar especially the unknowns. 

 

Nobody im willing to bet thought Blackmon would be this successful but he has. 

[Rally5 495]

On 10/23/2020 at 2:51 PM, Four2itus said:

This is a thread to talk about the realities of finding, developing, and sustaining good QB play for the Colts. I know there is a vast array of opinions on how this is to be done, and I believe that the combination of our Head Coach and GM, is the right pair to get that done. IMO, it is far more important than the end result of this years win total, although they look to being doing all they can to win now. What I would ask is for this not to become a debate over which QB is better, but more about the discussion of how to get from where the team is, to where we hope the team to be in the near future. Of course that will include comments about past, current, and future QB possibilities, but I hope that this becomes an eloquent waxing of the path to franchise QB Valhalla rather than the rock pitching and torch throwing muck of QB comparison ditch wallowing. 

 

Percentages, ladies and gentlemen.......percentages.

 

Feel free to look at the number of successful, franchise QB's in the NFL over the last 20 years.....compared to the number of "needed" QB's in the last 20 years. By "Needed", I mean teams who have competed in the league without what most of you feel is at least adequate skills and abilities to win you a championship. I think you will find that to be a disturbingly low percentage. Even if you skew the comparison to eliminate all picks after the sixth round, it is still revealingly low number. 

 

So, I can already hear some of you say, "That is why you do everything you can to find that QB". What if the Colts offered 4 first round picks to move up and get "That" guy. Even if he was all that, the cost in the ability to put talent around him likely negates all the great things he brings to the future of the franchise.

 

My point? Teams are fluid. Rosters are fluid. Re-building, building, re-tooling, or whatever you want to call it, is far from a static process. A team with young defense for instance, treats the draft differently than a team with a seasoned defense. Where are the skill positions, where is the offensive line, or where are your pass rushers in terms of their NFL lifespan? 

 

The Colts are deeper in their offensive and defensive lines combined than I have seen since they moved to Indy. This is a huge accomplishment. It is one that takes patience, vision, and determination by the GM. It would be wonderful to simply pick the right QB, but it is possible that the best the team can do......considering all aspects of its team, development, and immediate future...is to go for either a pick like they did to get Eason, or to pay for that FA like they did for PR (or trade for Brissett). Please don't go to the "Tank" card. GM, coaches, scouts, players....all do everything they can to win. It is their very livelihood on the line. Besides....sucking bad enough to get that high pick guarantees nothing more than a possibility. 

 

I feel that the team is doing damn near as well as they could in the timeline they are in, which includes our former Andrew Luck, who got so injured both through a GM that couldn't surround him with protection and support, his first coordinator to hung him out to dry with long developing play calling, and his own stubborn need to hang on the the ball too long. I might add that Mr Luck  may deserve some blame for not truly developing his short game.....I just don't think it was ever part of his persona. Hell, I refused to ever develop my short game in golf. Why, because I love to crush that little white ball. Sometimes, we know exactly what we should do, and we do something else anyway.

 

But to surmise, to state that the team needs to go get "X" QB, no matter the cost, does not realistically take in the total job required of a front office. They need to create wins...each and every year. They can't throw away the present, to possibly make a better future. I do not think the Eason pick was a light attempt to get a QB for the future. I think it was a calculated selection, and it was probably about as good as they could do, considering where they are in their own personnel/development/team timeline. My guess, is that is was a very wise move.

 

Please share your thoughts on how the team should go after the QB you want, but if you could, please elaborate on current and future needs of the entire team, because that QB selection, and the price paid to achieve it, can be a franchise changing choice. 

I think there's a real chance we get Carson Wentz.  This is me doing zero research and shooting from the hip...

 

1. Eagles drafted Jalen Hurts in Rd 2.

2. Reich knows Wentz, a big deal.

3. We're a ready to win now team.

4. Wentz is 27 with massive potential, his best year was with Frank as I recall.

5. It will cost a #1, I'd pay it for a 10 yr QB.

6. Drop the two we have and we have the cap space to sign him plus our own.

 

 It has potential.

 

[Four2itus 4,704]

4 minutes ago, Rally5 said:

I think there's a real chance we get Carson Wentz.  This is me doing zero research and shooting from the hip...

 

1. Eagles drafted Jalen Hurts in Rd 2.

2. Reich knows Wentz, a big deal.

3. We're a ready to win now team.

4. Wentz is 27 with massive potential, his best year was with Frank as I recall.

5. It will cost a #1, I'd pay it for a 10 yr QB.

6. Drop the two we have and we have the cap space to sign him plus our own.

 

 It has potential.

 

Hadn't considered that, but it's interesting. 

[Four2itus 4,704]

2 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

The odds are infinitely greater and it also depends on the team around you. Manning was the big reason Colts won his 1st but he wouldn't have a 2nd without Broncos D.

 

Thats what I like about Ballard he is slowly but surely changing the entire dynamic of this team.

 

He's taking a bottom dwelling OL and has improved it greatly. 

 

Adding Buckner was HUGE for this D as well as building the LBs.

 

I will admit his drafts for the most part have been stellar especially the unknowns. 

 

Nobody im willing to bet thought Blackmon would be this successful but he has. 

Sorry, can't follow your logic. However, thanks for adding to the thread. 

[BigO 52]

6 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Never trade away a pick when a once in a generation style QB comes out like Lawrence. 

 

If Giants and Jets finish top 2 bottom teams and both pass on Lawrence they will be the laughing stock of the league.

In my opinion Justin Fields is not too far behind Lawrence!

[w87r 3,947]

3 hours ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

It won't help a team who isn't ready for one. The Colts took Luck when they had no offensive line to protect him and other short comings. A shortened career was a foregone conclusion when that happened in my opinion. They needed to wait two years to build an offensive line and be ready for a franchise QB.

 

Most of Luck's injuries were self imposed, by his playing style and his off-season recreational activities.

 

 

But that's for a different topic. That has been over and over any times.

[Moosejawcolt 1,399]

5 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

They need way more then a QB. Those teams are so void of talent. 

Sure u can be like the Colts. Live in mediocrity.

[danlhart87 6,096]

21 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Sure u can be like the Colts. Live in mediocrity.

we should all be so lucky 

[Chloe6124 9,014]

Looks like Minshew might get benched. Jags are going g end up with a very good QB in the draft. We need to get our  team figured out at that position.

[Nickster 770]

Wentz would make be beyond awesome.

 

i wish there was som way we could go back and trade up for Herbert.  I don’t watch much college, but from what I’ve seen of this guy this season, he’s going to be right up there with Mahomey.

[Fluke_33 2,353]

18 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Never trade away a pick when a once in a generation style QB comes out like Lawrence. 

 

If Giants and Jets finish top 2 bottom teams and both pass on Lawrence they will be the laughing stock of the league.

If it’s the bengals though I stick with burrow and trade for a treasure trove.  

[Nesjan3 610]

Were pretty much stuck in limbo. Were too good to draft an "A" prospect at the top of the draft, but not quite good enough to win it all. Either have to get lucky with a later round quarterback or Ballard needs to pull off some sort of trade.

[ThorstenDenmark 205]

Trade for Matt Ryan at the end of the season, as the Falcons will be rebuilding.

 

We will then have 3-5 good years in him and then be in position to draft Arch Manning in 2026 or 27, with a depleted roster, as we will be in rebuild mode in 2026, after a horrible season in 2025.

 

The we have the present future and be safe for the next 18 years with a new Manning at QB. 

[hoosierhawk 701]

I'd go back to our favorite trading partner, the Jets. Give up TY a a 2nd or 3rd rounder for Darnold. I think he could be a very good QB in the right system.

[danlhart87 6,096]

13 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

I'd go back to our favorite trading partner, the Jets. Give up TY a a 2nd or 3rd rounder for Darnold. I think he could be a very good QB in the right system.

We won't do TY that dirty 

[hoosierhawk 701]

10 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

We won't do TY that dirty 

He maybe would have Lawrence throwing to him. 

[LJpalmbeacher2 1,613]

On 10/23/2020 at 5:00 PM, Four2itus said:

Love the input so far. Here is some mega research. I'll start with the Bills and let's dig into this...

 

Buffalo Bills since Doug Flutie 1998-2000: 

 

Drew Bledsoe

JP Losman

Kelly Holcomb

Trent Edwards

Ryan Fitzpatrick

Brian Brohm

EJ Manuel 

Thaddeus Lewis

Jeff Tuel

Kyle Orton

Matt Cassel

Tyrod Taylor

Nathan Peterman

Josh Allen

Derek Anderson

LeSean McCoy

Matt Barkley

 

 My first question, before I can do the percentage math, is how many of these QB's would you feel or have felt at the time were true possibilities at being a franchise QB. As a whole, they represent over 300 starts. 

 

All research from this site....  Here

 

 

You'll have fun doing the dolphins since Marino and the jets....ahhh, the old  AFC Least. 

[Stephen 1,726]

Just stick with eason and build up ol and pass rush with top picks

[AZColt11 1,266]

I like the "other" TL, Trey Lance, but I'm not sure I want to give up what it would take to get him, unless some team wanted a player we have on our roster that we are going to give up in FA (Hilton?) to lessen the picks lost.  I'm thinking Lawrence and Fields go very early.  I do not want to give up the capital it will take to get one of the two.  I do think after that it's possible to get Lance in a position that they won't have to give up all their picks.  It sort of depends on where the Colts are drafting of course, but I think they could get someone that helps.  Kyle Trask and Zach Wilson are two guys I've been watching and both have been impressive.  I lean toward Wilson because I think in this day in the NFL you need a dual threat QB, and Wilson is probably the better runner of the two.  But with our OL, I think we could protect Trask fairly well.  I mean he moves better than Rivers and he hasn't been sacked much.

 

I don't like giving up a ton of draft capital.  I think you can find guys that are pretty good without having to sacrifice your future and still get play that is enough to give you a chance to win, especially if the rest of your roster is fairly sound.  I do think at least one of those guys will be available when the Colts are on the clock.  And i don't feel like either are THAT much worse than what you would get with the top 3 guys, especially when you consider the picks you'd have to sacrifice.

 

The other thing here is Eason.  We already have him and he is still an unknown.  Do we give him the reigns and say "Go out and win this job"?  If we do and he fails and we don't have a backup plan then we are another year away from getting "the guy".  I'd just as soon grab another guy in the off-season.  But couldn't they try and get a FA?  Well, the class is not very strong this year.  I don't have any idea what 2021 looks like.    We'll have a better idea about the draft in the next few months.

 

I guess if pinned down, I'd try to get one of Wilson or Trask in round 1, and let he and Eason fight it out for supremacy.  They'll be cheap and if they don't work out you can try and get a vet in FA perhaps in 2021.  The FA QB's in 2020 won't be that strong.  Making a trade for a Wentz or Carr wouldn't be bad, but it is going to cost something.  Then again, you kinda know what you have, both good and bad.

 

I certainly don't have all the answers here.  In fact I probably have more questions.  It will be interesting to see how Ballard handles this but I'm confident he'll get this position shored up within the next couple of years.

 

 

[Chucklez 305]

On 10/23/2020 at 11:24 PM, danlhart87 said:

Id be fine adding to it too

Lawrence is going to be a good one 

Whoever has the #1 pick is not passing up on Lawrence.... Do you think the Colts wouldve given up the 1st for Luck at the time? It wouldve required something insane like their next 5 first rounders, which no one would ever do.

[Myles 3,914]

1 hour ago, Chucklez said:

Whoever has the #1 pick is not passing up on Lawrence.... Do you think the Colts wouldve given up the 1st for Luck at the time? It wouldve required something insane like their next 5 first rounders, which no one would ever do.

The Browns and another team offered pretty much their entire draft to move up to draft Luck.  

[Chucklez 305]

17 minutes ago, Myles said:

The Browns and another team offered pretty much their entire draft to move up to draft Luck.  

exactly, and we didnt take it!

[jbaron04 76]

On 10/23/2020 at 4:37 PM, w87r said:

Watching Wentz last night, a couple thing stood out to me.

 

1. He makes some bad decisions, I think his poor OL that has started 6 or 7 different combinations this season, has a little to do with it, but he took sacks and didnt throw it away when he should of. Forced throws, he should of never considered. (10ints this year)

 

2. He makes a lot of great throws as well. If he would cut down on #1, he could probably return to MVP form, but his bad decisions is troubling.

Sounds like Winston to me which can be had a lot cheaper than wentz 

[w87r 3,947]

8 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

Sounds like Winston to me which can be had a lot cheaper than wentz 

 

 

Don't even care to have Wentz, really, but at least he has played at an MVP level before.

 

 

Winston is lucky to have a 3rd string job, and if the Colts would've wanted him, they could've signed him for cheap.

 

Would be thoroughly disappointed if Winston was even a backup for this team.

[Myles 3,914]

On 10/24/2020 at 6:20 PM, Four2itus said:

To play devils advocate, would it be all that draft capital to get say.....one SB over the next 14 years?

 

I use that as an example of the "Great QB" because that is what transpired during our beloved PM's time here. 

I'll take it.   Although only 1 SB win (another SB appearance as well, the team was competitive every year and a threat to win.   I would take that 14 year span over Eli's span with the Giants even though they ended up with 1 more SB win. 

[OffensivelyPC 1,093]

On 10/24/2020 at 5:56 PM, danlhart87 said:

My point is trading up is risky but its well worth the risk 

Maybe in theory.  In application, trading up for a QB and drafting a franchise, cornerstone QB is so improbably that it's hardly worth trading up. Trading up for Lawrence from where we'll likely be picking is more than risky - it's suicide.

 

The skins traded up for RG3,   The Cards traded up for Josh Rosen.  The Jets traded up for Sam Darnold. The Ravens for Lamar Jackson and the Bills for Josh Allen. 

 

It's a shot in the dark, really.  So I think that you are better off accurately judging talent and drafting how it comes to you.  I am not against moving up a few spots here and there, but you don't need to mortgage the franchise for a top 3 pick. 

[pacolts56 3,904]

First of all.... I prefer that we NOT make any sort of “king’s ransom” move up in the draft.

For me it’s dictated by two scenarios.....

 

1. We make the playoffs.

 

a. Sign Rivers for 1 more season.

b. Shop Jacoby for a 5th or 6th rounder. If there are no offers.... release him.

c. Promote Eason to backup.

d. Draft a 2nd-4th round QB prospect.

 

2. We miss the playoffs 

 

a. Release Rivers 

b. Promote Eason to starter for 2021.

c. Offer Jacoby a 2-year “mid-tier BACKUP” contract. If he declines, release him and seek out a cap-friendly journeyman backup.

d. Draft a 2nd-4th round QB prospect.

[SR711 170]

Here are the potential scenarios I see for acquiring QB of the future

 

1. Buying low on a still young, green former high draft pick (in this case Sam Darnold) with the intent that a change of scenery, new coaching staff can help him realize his potential and draft status. Titans did this with Ryan Tannehill and it seems to have paid off fo for the time being.  Obviously, the front office and coaching staff have to believe the guy can be turned around and thrive in the right system, environment.

 

2.  Mailing in the season in a draft where it is QB rich in top end talent or a franchise changer is available.  A risky one because every year there are highly ranked QB prospects with tools to become a "franchise QB" available but a lot of them turn out to be Marcus Mariotta, Blake Bortles or Tim Couch.  Getting the wrong end of this can really set the franchise back a long time (look no further than the 1980's and early 90's Colts).  

 

3.  Pulling a Tom Brady/Russell Wilson and finding the guy in later draft rounds.  This is what many hoping what we did with Eason, but, realistically, the odds of doing this are extremely low.  Bad idea to bank on this as it is akin to hoping you win the lottery IMO.

 

4.  Trading up in the 1st round  or using a mid 1st round pick to take an undervalued, unrecognized superstar.  Requires good scouting and most importantly a coaching staff that can identify skill sets that  mesh well with what they are trying to do offensively.  Also takes some foresight to be somewhat of a pioneer in previously overlooked skills sets.  

 

Of the four scenarios outlined, I see 1 and 2 as being the most realistic.  2 is painful, but if done properly, it can lead to getting things in order pretty quickly especially if the rest of the supporting pieces are in plac..  

[Dasteez 133]

- Were not trading JB for anything. He will finish his contract this year and not be resigned. He wasn't released because we had ample cap and PR is one good hit away from retirement 

 

- Eason was likely drafted as a long term backup QB with upside. He is not the future. He will likely serve as our backup QB for whatever FA QB we bring in next year OR draft 

- PR will not get us anywhere close to a Super Bowl this year. He will do enough to keep us watching Colts games but throw enough INTs to prevent us getting past the 1st round of the playoffs if we even get there, which at this point feels like even a long shot 

 

- Were in the non-franchise QB purgatory and will likely remain here for the foreseeable future. Teams hunt for years and have many failed attempts before striking QB gold. It’s needle-in-a-hay-stack rare that you have a 1st overall pick in a generational QB year like the Colts have had twice. No one is trading that opportunity away for any amount of draft picks
 

[ReMeDy 407]

On 10/23/2020 at 3:37 PM, danlhart87 said:

AL the past 

TL is the future 

AM is the distant future

 

I prefer PM over AM. Resign Peyton Manning.

[BleedBlue4Shoe86 659]

Here is the future QB for the Colts. 
 

 

[AZColt11 1,266]

3 hours ago, BleedBlue4Shoe86 said:

Here is the future QB for the Colts. 
 

 

I certainly HOPE so because he is already here and cheap and gives the Colts the best chance to continue to build the team for the next 3-4 years before he has to be resigned.