I want honest answers to this

[Coltsman1788 1,450]

13 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

No, you have to tell us now. Not at the end of the season, not a month from now, not next week, not tomorrow, NOW! You understand that. You aren't getting out of it that easy!  I want to know, what's your verdict? Please, please please!  

I like what I’m seeing so far. That’s all your getting for now.  I know I’ve been tough on Rivers so I don’t want to jinx him by giving my endorsement too early.  Lol   Let him continue to try to win me over.  

[John Hammonds 1,243]

It's still to early to say.  Once the season is over, you have all of your standard personnel decision checkboxes that need to be checked:

* What do really have?  You are never as good as, nor as bad as, your last game.  The same guy who threw three TD's and got a 107.2 QB rating vs the Packers is also the guy who threw two INT's and got a 60.5 rating vs the Browns.  At the end of the day, you still have a 39 year old statue with mediocre zip on the ball, but who knows where to throw it.

* Can you improve at the position?  Always ask this question.  Example:  If you already have a good stable of RB's, why are you drafting this kid out of Wisconsin?  Because we could improve at the position, that's why.

* What are your other priorities?  We may want to improve at QB, but we still have issues at LT, DE, CB, and WR that we need to address.  Which issues take priority?  If you focus on one of them, the other will not get addressed.  Gotta prioritize.

* What are our opportunities?  What players are out there, both in the draft and in free agency? And will the opportunity to take them present itself during the process?  Your potential replacement may not be out there.  Or may not be within our reach.

 

I'm glad Rivers is doing well.  He's doing what we paid him the 1 year contract to do.  We improved the position over last year.

But we still need to evaluate where we are, what we want, and what we can do, before saying whether or not Rivers is back next year.

[Blueblood23 327]

9 hours ago, EastStreet said:

If they don't view Eason as good enough to be a backup next year, then it's probably time to move on from Eason.

And if that's the case, you grab a QB like Trask in the 1st round, and bring back Rivers.

I just don't see situation where bringing back JB is in the cards. I don't mind carrying 3 QBs, but it is a roster spot.

If Eason is not the one to work out, then drafting Zach Wilson would make sense to me.

[2006Coltsbestever 21,348]

17 minutes ago, John Hammonds said:

It's still to early to say.  Once the season is over, you have all of your standard personnel decision checkboxes that need to be checked:

* What do really have?  You are never as good as, nor as bad as, your last game.  The same guy who threw three TD's and got a 107.2 QB rating vs the Packers is also the guy who threw two INT's and got a 60.5 rating vs the Browns.  At the end of the day, you still have a 39 year old statue with mediocre zip on the ball, but who knows where to throw it.

* Can you improve at the position?  Always ask this question.  Example:  If you already have a good stable of RB's, why are you drafting this kid out of Wisconsin?  Because we could improve at the position, that's why.

* What are your other priorities?  We may want to improve at QB, but we still have issues at LT, DE, CB, and WR that we need to address.  Which issues take priority?  If you focus on one of them, the other will not get addressed.  Gotta prioritize.

* What are our opportunities?  What players are out there, both in the draft and in free agency? And will the opportunity to take them present itself during the process?  Your potential replacement may not be out there.  Or may not be within our reach.

 

I'm glad Rivers is doing well.  He's doing what we paid him the 1 year contract to do.  We improved the position over last year.

But we still need to evaluate where we are, what we want, and what we can do, before saying whether or not Rivers is back next year.

It's cool looking into the future and next year and the year after but all that should matter is this year in reality. 1 week and 1 year at a time is how I think. We have a QB right now that is winning games so lets enjoy the ride because next season we could stink with someone else if Rivers hangs it up.

[AZColt11 1,266]

18 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

If Eason is not the one to work out, then drafting Zach Wilson would make sense to me.

I'm with you on the Wilson thing brother.

[Jdubu 1,268]

11 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Several posters are so against bringing Rivers back for 1 more year. 

 

This is the 2nd time  (Bengals) he has led HUGE double digit comeback. 

 

Are you more open to another Rivers year cause I am.

 

We could very well be 5 - 5 without him 

I wouldn’t be completely opposed to the idea, let’s see how the rest of this season goes for him and into the playoffs but I’d also like to have some small insight into how Eason is honestly progressing in his understanding of the NFL level game. My guess is if Rivers wants another year, he will get one here unless Eason has shown in practices that he has what it takes to run the team. I think the team will take the safe approach and offer PR up another 1 yr 25 mill contract and continue developing Eason, unless PR shows signs of serious wear in the end of this year and kinda falls off a cliff. That arm ain’t young.

 

two things could happen as well next season, sign PR and start him. If he shows signs of being 39 mid way through and the team sees a slide, insert Eason and see where it goes but the team will have some guys to payout in 2021. Grover, Houston, Autry, Rivers, Mack, TY,Rhodes, Walker. They aren’t going to be able

to bring them all back but if they go with 4 of them, it’s PR, Stewart, Autry or Houston (maybe both). 
 

this here is quite a list of guys who, while aren’t superstars by any form, they are guys who gel and make this team complete as a team. Hopefully, CB can select the correct role players from this list and sprinkle in even more talent from 2021 draft.  https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/indianapolis-colts/

[chad72 6,630]

10 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I don't bring Jacoby back honestly. He will probably want too much money to be a backup, and knowing Jacoby, he probably wants to try and play for a starters job, which he wouldn't get from Rivers. Only way I sign Jacoby for next year is if we get him for $5 million or less on a 1 year deal. Other than that, I promote Eason to backup duty as he seems to be doing well learning right now and staying on the 53.

 

Teach Eason QB sneaks and Hail Mary situations, which are the main plays we seem to run with Jacoby on the field now when Rivers is not banged up. Maybe if we have clinched the division and cannot move further up in week 17, we could think of giving Jacoby playing time then with another start. Since our bye week came early, a lot of starters could use time off, IMO.

 

[Jared Cisneros 3,781]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

Teach Eason QB sneaks and Hail Mary situations, which are the main plays we seem to run with Jacoby on the field now when Rivers is not banged up. Maybe if we have clinched the division and cannot move further up in week 17, we could think of giving Jacoby playing time then with another start. Since our bye week came early, a lot of starters could use time off, IMO.

 

Depends on the injuries for me if we play them week 17. If there's something to gain such as homefield advantage or a 1st round bye, I keep them in. If not, then sit the starters and get the younger guys some experience Vs a weak Jax team. I agree with Eason. He's good enough to do Brissett's job and has a similar build to him to do it.

[Colt1841 17]

We have too much money tied up in QB's. If nothing changes to our roster for next year we'll be paying more for QB's than the Chiefs, Think about that. 

[chad72 6,630]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Depends on the injuries for me if we play them week 17. If there's something to gain such as homefield advantage or a 1st round bye, I keep them in. If not, then sit the starters and get the younger guys some experience Vs a weak Jax team. I agree with Eason. He's good enough to do Brissett's job and has a similar build to him to do it.

 

Remember, only 1 team gets both the bye and homefield advantage this year.

 

So, let us say we are #4 seed and get to play the Raiders a 2nd time or the Titans a 3rd time (anticipating one of them ends up at #5) and cannot move up to get the #3 seed, I would rest some key starters after maybe a half.

[Jdubu 1,268]

11 hours ago, CR91 said:

I'll admit, Rivers still has some strength in his arm, but how well he holds up in bad weather games in the playoffs if we get in like kansas city, buffalo, and pittsburgh will be a telling story.

That is the factor right here for me. If PR can get this team into the playoffs, win a game or three, he is offered a chance to comeback (I think it’s Indy or retirement for PR as I doubt he wants to move his family 3 straight years). If he gets us to the playoffs and loses in the first round, what’s the point of playing with a guy who will be 39 and showed decline (potentially) into the playoffs? It would then be time to say it’s reasonable that next years PR will bet you the same results or less being a year older imho. It would be then time to see what the young guy has to offer (1st rd pick or Eason). 

11 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

We are finally running the ball which is helping this team stay balanced. He needs to come back. Big question though do you bring Jacoby back. You might need him to compliment rivers.

I say no to JB. It’s time to cut that and if your using 2 QB’s to get the job done, you really have none. Figure out why this oline can’t seem to produce a 3rd and 2 consistently with who they have and/or the RB spot and move on from using a QB as a sneak specialist. 

11 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You might be right. He likes it here and he may take less money. He seems to love his role now. You never know.

He likes it here and his role because he is being paid 21 million dollars. I’d love my role as a poop digger for 21 million a year. 

10 hours ago, ojsglove said:

Swag returns.  

Add Swag and Luck next year and let those two fight it out for 3rd stringers lol

[2006Coltsbestever 21,348]

1 minute ago, Jdubu said:

That is the factor right here for me. If PR can get this team into the playoffs, win a game or three, he is offered a chance to comeback (I think it’s Indy or retirement for PR as I doubt he wants to move his family 3 straight years). If he gets us to the playoffs and loses in the first round, what’s the point of playing with a guy who will be 39 and showed decline (potentially) into the playoffs? It would then be time to say it’s reasonable that next years PR will bet you the same results or less being a year older imho. It would be then time to see what the young guy has to offer (1st rd pick or Eason). 

I say no to JB. It’s time to cut that and if your using 2 QB’s to get the job done, you really have none. Figure out why this oline can’t seem to produce a 3rd and 2 consistently with who they have and/or the RB spot and move on from using a QB as a sneak specialist. 

He likes it here and his role because he is being paid 21 million dollars. I’d love my role as a poop digger for 21 million a year. 

Add Swag and Luck next year and let those two fight it out for 3rd stringers lol

I have to admit, I would dig up poop for 21 Mill  

[Shive 1,754]

31 minutes ago, Colt1841 said:

We have too much money tied up in QB's. If nothing changes to our roster for next year we'll be paying more for QB's than the Chiefs, Think about that. 

If nothing changes with our roster for next year, Jacob Eason will be the only QB under contract, since Rivers and Brissett's contracts are up after this year.

[Valpo2004 1,491]

I am preferential to bringing him back for another year.  

 

I'd bring Jacoby back too if we could get him for like 5 mil or less.  (I doubt we can)  I really like rotating Jacoby in on 3rd and short.  

[Arodgers12 298]

1 minute ago, Valpo2004 said:

I am preferential to bringing him back for another year.  

 

I'd bring Jacoby back too if we could get him for like 5 mil or less.  (I doubt we can)  I really like rotating Jacoby in on 3rd and short.  

Rivers has made you guys Immediately into a SB contender.

[richard pallo 2,377]

 

 

8 hours ago, superrep1967 said:

I couldn't agree more we need to find the replacement for Costanzo. We are lucky he came back this year. 

With all of the cuts coming this offseason I wouldn't be surprised if we found a good starting LT in FA.  

[Stephen 1,746]

14 minutes ago, Arodgers12 said:

Rivers has made you guys Immediately into a SB contender.

I'll wait til after raiders and Steelers  games to know if we can play with tgw big dogs of the afc

[Arodgers12 298]

1 minute ago, Stephen said:

I'll wait til after raiders and Steelers  games to know if we can play with tgw big dogs of the afc

I have more faith that you guys can than we can.

[Stephen 1,746]

2 minutes ago, Arodgers12 said:

I have more faith that you guys can than we can.

If the packers get a stronger presence  in the middle their defense  would improve  and it would help against the run to.

[Nesjan3 647]

no

[Valpo2004 1,491]

27 minutes ago, Arodgers12 said:

Rivers has made you guys Immediately into a SB contender.

 

I agree but a big part of it is that we had a strong team that just needed a quarterback.  Brissett is a good backup and I really like rotating him in on 3rd or 4th and short because he is built to win on QB sneaks and also has mobility that River's lacks.  But as a full time starter he's not the guy.  

[pgt_rob 676]

Rivers isn't a bad QB, he can get it done if possible. But I think we can improve our QB position for sure. 

[shakedownstreet 2,033]

13 hours ago, EastStreet said:

He's put the team on his back several times

 

It must be getting a little crowded back there

[Arodgers12 298]

Did you guys think it was stupid of us to go for it on 4th and inches and do a play action pass? I know your happy we did with the outcome but my buddy is blaming Lafluer for the loss on that play. You guys were the better team though.

[shakedownstreet 2,033]

2 minutes ago, Arodgers12 said:

Did you guys think it was stupid of us to go for it on 4th and inches and do a play action pass? I know your happy we did with the outcome but my buddy is blaming Lafluer for the loss on that play. You guys were the better team though.

 

Not at all. I think that play works a high percentage of the time

[Arodgers12 298]

3 minutes ago, shakedownstreet said:

 

Not at all. I think that play works a high percentage of the time

Rodgers was at fault there. He threw a terrible pass.

[Horseshoelife19 31]

I want to see a healthy Parris Cambell Michael Pittman and Demichael  Harris stretching the field and Jacob Eason unleashing that cannon arm!!!

I want to see a healthy Parris Cambell Michael Pittman and Demichael  Harris stretching the field and Jacob Eason unleashing that cannon arm!!!

[Zoltan 450]

Right now I say “no” I’ll wait to see how the playoffs go. 

[Nickster 789]

10 hours ago, Stephen said:

Rivers  spreads the ball alot. Doesn't  really have a favorite  receiver, but we need a more mobile qb to take offense to the next level 

We don't really need a more mobile QB.  That is just something people say.  

 

It doesn't hurt, but every team needs at the minimum from a QB an ability to make plays from the pocket.  That is all that has really ever been required.  Mobility can help occasionally, but it's just cool looking, it's not that important.

Kansas City Chiefs

Seattle Seahawks

Green Bay Packers

Pittsburgh Steelers

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

New Orleans Saints

Arizona Cardinals

Las Vegas Raiders

Tennessee Titans

Indianapolis Colts

 

These are the top 10 teams in scoring in order.  Only one has a "running QB", Mahomes, Wilson, and to a lesser extent Rogers are the only other ones who would be considered "mobile."  And all three of those guys make their living in the pocket.  The mobility only supplements their games.  I would guess that Wilson and Mahomes will continute to be effective even after their mobility is no longer as great as it is.

 

Most of the rest of these aren't very mobile half the teams have statues at QB.

 

[Mr.Debonair 1,678]

52 minutes ago, Nickster said:

We don't really need a more mobile QB.  That is just something people say.  

 

It doesn't hurt, but every team needs at the minimum from a QB an ability to make plays from the pocket.  That is all that has really ever been required.  Mobility can help occasionally, but it's just cool looking, it's not that important.

Kansas City Chiefs

Seattle Seahawks

Green Bay Packers

Pittsburgh Steelers

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

New Orleans Saints

Arizona Cardinals

Las Vegas Raiders

Tennessee Titans

Indianapolis Colts

 

These are the top 10 teams in scoring in order.  Only one has a "running QB", Mahomes, Wilson, and to a lesser extent Rogers are the only other ones who would be considered "mobile."  And all three of those guys make their living in the pocket.  The mobility only supplements their games.  I would guess that Wilson and Mahomes will continute to be effective even after their mobility is no longer as great as it is.

 

Most of the rest of these aren't very mobile half the teams have statues at QB.

 

Tannehill is not a statue. Kyler not a statue. Carr not a statue. Those QBs are mobile enough to run PA bootlegs, rollouts, etc. When ppl ask for a mobile QB they don't mean Mike Vick. Those same plays that killed us on the edges run by Rodgers are the types of plays that we cannot run. Those plays are great on 2nd or 3rd and short. 

 

It's also why the Saints bring Hill in so much and part of the reason they chose him over Winston. 

[GoColts8818 4,376]

4 hours ago, Colt1841 said:

We have too much money tied up in QB's. If nothing changes to our roster for next year we'll be paying more for QB's than the Chiefs, Think about that. 

Jacoby isn’t coming back for the money he’s making and probably not coming back at all.

[Defjamz26 1,949]

If bringing Rivers back means it’s going to delay finding the long term answer at QB then I’m also against bringing him back. If that means another year of not knowing what you have in Eason and not drafting a QB high, then pass.

 

Rivers has played amazing to the point that anyone who still is screaming for Jacoby is clearly trolling. Upgrade is an understatement. But bandaids don’t last forever.

[bestQBever 570]

Won't answer this question until the season is over over

[Nickster 789]

1 hour ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Tannehill is not a statue. Kyler not a statue. Carr not a statue. Those QBs are mobile enough to run PA bootlegs, rollouts, etc. When ppl ask for a mobile QB they don't mean Mike Vick. Those same plays that killed us on the edges run by Rodgers are the types of plays that we cannot run. Those plays are great on 2nd or 3rd and short. 

 

It's also why the Saints bring Hill in so much and part of the reason they chose him over Winston. 

Kyler is the runner I was referring to.  

 

 

Carr at best is below average mobility and Tannehill is average.

 

My point is that mobility is well down on the list of what a team needs in a QB.  

 

Wilson and Mahomes are very mobile but it's not the main thing that makes them great. It's the icing.

 

Brady, Roethlisberger, Brees for about the last 10 years, Rivers, obviously, are immobile.

 

Most of the best, winning QBs are not mobile and the ones that are use it sparingly.

 

It is not necessary to have a mobile QB.  

 

[Mr.Debonair 1,678]

18 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Kyler is the runner I was referring to.  

 

 

Carr at best is below average mobility and Tannehill is average.

 

My point is that mobility is well down on the list of what a team needs in a QB.  

 

Wilson and Mahomes are very mobile but it's not the main thing that makes them great. It's the icing.

 

Brady, Roethlisberger, Brees for about the last 10 years, Rivers, obviously, are immobile.

 

Most of the best, winning QBs are not mobile and the ones that are use it sparingly.

 

It is not necessary to have a mobile QB.  

 

Rivers may be slower than all of them. Brady was never fast but his movement in the pocket is 2nd to none. Rivers is not off that same aptitude on regular occasions, tho he did well yesterday . Also I need didn’t say it was priority number 1. I said that having a more mobile QB would open this offense even more. 

[richard pallo 2,377]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

If bringing Rivers back means it’s going to delay finding the long term answer at QB then I’m also against bringing him back. If that means another year of not knowing what you have in Eason and not drafting a QB high, then pass.

 

Rivers has played amazing to the point that anyone who still is screaming for Jacoby is clearly trolling. Upgrade is an understatement. But bandaids don’t last forever.

I would not be surprised at all to see Rivers retire at the end of the year if we win the SB.  Go out on top as they say.  If he gets close then I would think he will want to come back for one more year and get his ring.  I think Ballard will go all in to pick up the missing pieces to give us that chance and Eason will be our No. 2. 

[eaglerockdude 34]

Seems like if Ben Roth and The Goat can still play at their age, why not Rivers?  I remember years ago when as a charger fan kid...the Colts finally let Johnny Unitas go...and the Chargers picked him up.

 

Now darned if that son of a gun didn't passed the heck out of that ball one game...and we won...BUT...he was definitely out of his prime at that time...and he never did much....Rivers I would say is not in that boat...

[Superman 8,587]

8 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Teach Eason QB sneaks and Hail Mary situations, which are the main plays we seem to run with Jacoby on the field now when Rivers is not banged up. Maybe if we have clinched the division and cannot move further up in week 17, we could think of giving Jacoby playing time then with another start. Since our bye week came early, a lot of starters could use time off, IMO.

 

I think the way they used JB yesterday was excellent. I cringe every time I see JB come on the field, because it feels like they're forcing it, but they were on point this game. The sequence of two plays where JB handed it off, then kept it on a read option looking play (second quarter I think?), was particularly well done. And his work on sneaks is good, but he needs to keep those feet even so he doesn't tip the defense. Or maybe it doesn't matter if he's getting seven yards on a sneak...

 

But this is particularly important because Rivers can't do anything with his legs. He doesn't make defenders miss tackles, he rarely escapes pressure, and he's entirely incapable of running any kind of QB keeper play. But that read option sequence yesterday worked so well because the Packers were crashing on the ball carrier from the edge with reckless abandon. I actually feel like they started setting it up weeks ago, and it was very prominent with sweep plays against the Titans. Finally worked out yesterday. And of course JB isn't a great runner, but he's a thousand times better than Rivers.

 

For me, it really highlights some of the limitations to the offense with Rivers. Not that I'd rather have JB, because he's limited as a passer. 

[Defjamz26 1,949]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

I would not be surprised at all to see Rivers retire at the end of the year if we win the SB.  Go out on top as they say.  If he gets close then I would think he will want to come back for one more year and get his ring.  I think Ballard will go all in to pick up the missing pieces to give us that chance and Eason will be our No. 2. 

Im an optimist too but I don’t think the Colts are winning the SuperBowl. Regardless of that, I think it’s foolish to keep riding Rivers forever. Eason (if he is the answer) can not afford a 2nd season on the bench. Granted Jacoby will be gone, making him the backup so he’ll at least dress but this is a dangerous game Ballard is playing. We’re firmly out of the race for the top 4 QBs in 2021, but it still wouldn’t be a bad idea to take a shot on a Jamie Newman on the 2nd or 3rd round for example. 
 

However if the idea is going to be that you load up at premium positions to make one more run at it with Rivers so you pass on a QB and let Eason ride the bench again, where does that leave you in 2022? An unproven Eason going into his 3rd year and presumably at the bottom of the 1st, out of range for a QB in what will most likely be a weaker class anyways.

 

Plus let’s all be really honest and realistic here. Does anyone believe that Rivers can get to a Super Bowl, let alone win one? Against the powerhouse teams we have in the AFC?

[Chloe6124 9,227]

Rodgers rode the bench for like 3 years. It won’t kill Eason to be the backup to rivers one more year and give him one more year to learn.