I want honest answers to this

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Which chart I am reading wrong? The TOs are from Football Databse: https://www.footballdb.com/stats/turnovers.html?sort=taketot

The net yards per punt are from Team Rankings: https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-net-yards-per-successful-punt

 

And the rest is straight from DVOA.

 

 

 I was wrong about one thing...they are 25th in offense SOS...not bottom 4...so about 4 spots difference.

What is SOS offense?  The strength of schedule of the defenses they face?

[shasta519]

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

What do you think of bringing in Winston?  He is a guy we should totally go grab IMO, to back up Rivers if Rivers resigns.

 

If not, I'd still think he'd make sense.  He has had good years and Arians Offense can make QBs look bad.  

 

I would be interested in him...especially as insurance for a young QB starting. But I don't think Ballard would be. IF they do sign a FA to be a starter...it would likely just be Rivers re-upping. 

 

 

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I would be interested in him...especially as insurance for a young QB starting. But I don't think Ballard would be. IF they do sign a FA to be a starter...it would likely just be Rivers re-upping. 

 

 

I just think he can be had for not much.  I'm surprised there is no market for him.

[shasta519]

10 minutes ago, Nickster said:

What is SOS offense?  The strength of schedule of the defenses they face?

 

I assume so. Team Rankings applies to the overall schedule...and DVOA applies it to the offense and defense.

 

Right now...the Colts are 29th in SOS (Team Rankings)...but DVOA has them at 25th in offense and 24th in defense.

 

I am not sure how each platform calculates it though...but it's consistent with how the opposing teams rank...

 

According to DVOA...the only top 16 defenses so far have been CHI, BAL, CLE and (maybe) MIN...though they were really struggling on defense early on. The top 16 offenses have been GB, TEN, DET and MIN...but again they were really struggling early on.

 

The schedule has been favorable...but the Colts are a good team. 

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I assume so. Team Rankings applies to the overall schedule...and DVOA applies it to the offense and defense.

 

Right now...the Colts are 29th in SOS (Team Rankings)...but DVOA has them at 25th in offense and 24th in defense.

 

I am not sure how each platform calculates it though...but it's consistent with how the opposing teams rank...

 

According to DVOA...the only top 16 defenses so far have been CHI, BAL, CLE and (maybe) MIN...though they were really struggling on defense early on. The top 16 offenses have been GB, TEN, DET and MIN...but again they were really struggling early on.

 

The schedule has been favorable...but the Colts are a good team. 

 

 

The SOS for the last 3 weeks has been brutal, and is again this week.  I feel alot better about this team than I did before Balt.

 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Because I watched the game, and Rodgers played better. How many of our third and fourth downs was Rivers not even on the field for? 

 

Statistically it was pretty much equal. I think Rodgers had a better individual game.

 

 

That's garbage. It's an intentional misrepresentation of my point. 

This whole discussion is very similar about last year's discussions about JB, when we were being branded "Jacoby haters" and similar, just because we were pointing out the faults in his games and the unsustainability of his stats(which regressed in the second half) and pointing out that we were winning in many cases despite him, rather than because of him. 

 

I don't think this is the situation with Rivers this time, I think he's having an actual positive impact in most games(and negative in others too), but I agree - the main reason we are sporting a 7-3 record right now is the defensive perofrmance of this team. IMO Rivers is playing good in most games and he's contributing much more to the wins than Brissett did last year. 

[Nickster]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

This whole discussion is very similar about last year's discussions about JB, when we were being branded "Jacoby haters" and similar, just because we were pointing out the faults in his games and the unsustainability of his stats(which regressed in the second half) and pointing out that we were winning in many cases despite him, rather than because of him. 

 

I don't think this is the situation with Rivers this time, I think he's having an actual positive impact in most games(and negative in others too), but I agree - the main reason we are sporting a 7-3 record right now is the defensive perofrmance of this team. IMO Rivers is playing good in most games and he's contributing much more to the wins than Brissett did last year. 

 

he was pretty bad v. Cleveland and had the two errant throws v. JAX.  Other than that, I think he's been pretty good.  

 

He has not had much to work with most of the season.  Terrible running game, something JB was not faced with last season, and practice squad and UDFA talent at pass catching postions.  Something JB WAS faced with parts of last year.

Now we have Pitt back, looking good, TY running professional routes.  Taylor who I have vehemently criticized as a runner this year lookd really good v. GB. 

 

I think we look like a good team.

 

 

[Nickster]

50 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Like I said earlier, that's the crux of my disagreement. It suggests that team success is necessarily credited to the QB. And as much as that's the norm, I think it's wrong. It's an oversimplification of what it takes to win football games, and it's used to judge QB play without acknowledging the QB's role on the team.

 

This is "QB wins," and I will disagree with that concept for the rest of my natural life.

 

And I said the same thing last year when the team was 5-2. The prevailing argument was that JB must be pretty good because the team was winning. Not remotely.

 

Fair enough.  My whole point throughout this whole thing is that you are talking semantics, not statistics.  I say Rivers has QBd us to an impressive 7-3 with the last 3 weeks being really rough.  He has been crucial to our success. You say different.

 

I don't think that the JB situ last year is even remotely similar to the PR situ this year.

 

You say tomato; I say tomato.  But their is no statistical path to confirming it either way.

[luv_pony_express]

On 11/22/2020 at 8:56 PM, 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 think we’d be a better team with Brissett.  And I’m not a huge Brissett fan.

 

Rivers has been up and down.  Not horrible.  But not great, either.  His arm clearly isn’t what it used to be.  His mobility is easily the worst in the league - and his arm doesn’t make up for that like it used to.  If Father Time hasn’t caught up to him yet, he’s nipping on his heels.

 

Put me down as hoping to see:

 

1) Somebody not currently on the roster (Darnold?)

 

2) The better of Brissett or Eason

[shasta519]

46 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

 

The SOS for the last 3 weeks has been brutal, and is again this week.  I feel alot better about this team than I did before Balt.

 

 

It seems to get better on paper...but I don't think we can overlook any remaining game...except that Week 17 game. I think the next 4 games could all take 30+ points to win. 

[shasta519]

3 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

I think we’d be a better team with Brissett.  And I’m not a huge Brissett fan.

 

Rivers has been up and down.  Not horrible.  But not great, either.  His arm clearly isn’t what it used to be.  His mobility is easily the worst in the league - and his arm doesn’t make up for that like it used to.  If Father Time hasn’t caught up to him yet, he’s nipping on his heels.

 

Put me down as hoping to see:

 

1) Somebody not currently on the roster (Darnold?)

 

2) The better of Brissett or Eason

 

I don't think so. The offense is definitely better with Rivers...somewhere between where it was with Luck and where it was with JB.

 

Specifically...I don't see JB coming back in that CIN game...or the game against GB. One game required passing the ball...and the other required the threat of passing (so the run game could take over). Colts are probably 5-5 right now with JB...maybe 6-4...but not that is because the defense and STs have been so good.

[Nickster]

6 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

It seems to get better on paper...but I don't think we can overlook any remaining game...except that Week 17 game. I think the next 4 games could all take 30+ points to win. 

Pitt and Vegas are good, but Texans aren't.

 

If we have to score 30 to beat them, our defense would have to proabably play it's worst games of the year.

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Fair enough.  My whole point throughout this whole thing is that you are talking semantics, not statistics.  I say Rivers has QBd us to an impressive 7-3 with the last 3 weeks being really rough.  He has been crucial to our success. You say different.

 

I don't think that the JB situ last year is even remotely similar to the PR situ this year.

 

You say tomato; I say tomato.  But their is no statistical path to confirming it either way.

 

Someone should put all the relevant offensive stats on plot graphs, where we can see a visible representation of where the Colts offense stands in comparison to the rest of the league, statistically. 

[Superman]

59 minutes ago, stitches said:

This whole discussion is very similar about last year's discussions about JB, when we were being branded "Jacoby haters" and similar, just because we were pointing out the faults in his games and the unsustainability of his stats(which regressed in the second half) and pointing out that we were winning in many cases despite him, rather than because of him. 

 

I don't think this is the situation with Rivers this time, I think he's having an actual positive impact in most games(and negative in others too), but I agree - the main reason we are sporting a 7-3 record right now is the defensive perofrmance of this team. IMO Rivers is playing good in most games and he's contributing much more to the wins than Brissett did last year. 

 

Yeah, I'm not suggesting Rivers' contribution is mediocre the way JB's was. Just saying that a team having a good record doesn't mean they have good QB play. Seems like an innocuous statement, but I guess not.

 

Last year, our point differential through seven games was +7 (which basically equates to a .500 record). We're +68 this year, 5th best. Being 5-2 with a toothless offense and harmless defense last year made us a statistical outlier. That normalized as you would expect over the second half of the season.

[Fluke_33]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Someone should put all the relevant offensive stats on plot graphs, where we can see a visible representation of where the Colts offense stands in comparison to the rest of the league, statistically. 

Then rotate that graph on the z axis and find its volume using the slice formula.  

[shasta519]

2 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Pitt and Vegas are good, but Texans aren't.

 

If we have to score 30 to beat them, our defense would have to proabably play it's worst games of the year.

 

True...but divisional games are weird like that. Very hard to sweep those games. Seems likely Watson will have a good game in at least one of those...he's been playing at Pro Bowl level for weeks now (outside of the windfest in CLE).

 

This TEN game is likely it for the division. Whoever wins should win the division. Both teams would need huge help to overcome it...though I think both teams will ultimately end up in the playoffs. But not having to travel to BUF or KC on WC weekend would be ideal. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Fluke_33 said:

Then rotate that graph on the z axis and find its volume using the slice formula.  

 

Yeah.

[Nickster]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Someone should put all the relevant offensive stats on plot graphs, where we can see a visible representation of where the Colts offense stands in comparison to the rest of the league, statistically. 

 

There are so many variables in football, that you have to pretty much go with points allowed and ypg, but even then things get convoluted.

 

High scoring teams tend to give up garbage points and yards.  Some defenses willingly allow yds between the 20s knowing their shells will minimize the possiblities of touchdowns.  Some offenses are really good at moving the ball between the 20s, but lack a playmaking touchdown producer.  I think the Colts suffer from this offensively.

 

I think it's hard to argue definitively.

 

What I see is an offense that has bascially had one poor game scoring wise v. Balt, and a couple of other weaker days v. Jax and maybe Cle, but I think it is better than significantly more than half the teams, and under the circumstances personnel wise I find it hard to validate the argument that the offense is not a good one overall.

 

[Fluke_33]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah.

Sorry but that was funny. Lighten up Francis 

[JPFolks]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

OK but there are quite a few convolutions there to get to what seems to be a pretty clear point.  And I guess yeah if this were a debate club, we would need to take each indidual possibility but that is a little tedious to do all at once.

 

Dan as do I think that we will be better off with Rivers next year than not having Rivers.  One of the pieces I would cite would be the fact that we are 7-3, have navigated the last 3 weeks well, and Rivers seems to be playing at a high level.

 

So for instance I will argue specifically against Prescott.  He is a guy that IMO would put us squarely on the road to medicrity similar to what has happened in Dallas.  I think it would be worse here because he would command more of the team's resources as far as salary goes compared to what he now does in Dallas, which would mean less money for talent elsewhere.  He has done nothing speical in Dallas and seems to pad a lot of the gaudy numbers in bad losses.

 

I would say about the same for Deshauwn Watson.  He is younger, but the eye test tells me that his teams have been pretty mediocre with quite a bit of talent.  

 

I don't think either one of these guys would be an upgrade next year, necessarily over Rivers, and I think it would be a huge gamble with the the committment you would have to make with these guys.  You would hamstring your org for years with their salaries if they didn't work out.

 

What other possibilities do you see out there JP for us to compete NEXT YEAR?

That is a moving target.  We have no idea today which College QBs will even be in the draft.  We also don't know which ones might rise up from unexpected places.  The favorite for the Heisman wasn't on many people's radar just a couple months ago.  

 

We also have no idea how our 4th round pick is performing.  We don't have a single hint even.  He could look like a washout or he could look like Mahommes Pt, 2.   Additionally, we have no idea what other QBs will be on the market for trade.  Would Matt Ryan be an option? Sam Darnold? etc. etc.  Those are just names we have no idea who will actually be available.  We also do not know for sure that Rivers will want to keep playing.  There's still at least 6 weeks to go.  Anything could happen.  Injury could quickly make him decide to move on.  He's never been hurt enough to miss a game.  A significant injury could make him pack it up.  We also don't know if he will hold up in general.  What if his arm fades significantly? It happens to the best.  Brady looked awful.  Manning got benched and barely made it through the playoffs his last year.  He was awful in the Super Bowl even though his defense won the game.  

 

We just don't know what options we'll have or what the circumstances will be.  We may see a massive salary cap reduction and they may go with a cheaper option out of necessity.  We have a lot of young players that need to be resigned.  One year QB versus 8+ more years with a key young player can change things.  

 

I am not anti Rivers, just the opposite.  I have said all year that when the oline was struggling early, his quick release made all the difference.  When people were calling for Jacoby, I said his slow release will no longer fly.   But I am also a realist.  We need a long term answer at QB.  Year to year is bad for everyone.  Each QB has pros and cons and we need to build a team that works with our QB's strengths.  I hope that Eason is thriving.   Otherwise, I hope we draft a young guy who is ready to go.  I am not a Darnold fan, but Ballard has a good track record at most positions.  Let's hope when he picks someone, whether it is Rivers or an unknown, they can keep this train rolling.  All that said, it is WAY too early to hitch the wagon for one last year with an immobile elderly RB.  

 

 

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

True...but divisional games are weird like that. Very hard to sweep those games. Seems likely Watson will have a good game in at least one of those...he's been playing at Pro Bowl level for weeks now (outside of the windfest in CLE).

 

This TEN game is likely it for the division. Whoever wins should win the division. Both teams would need huge help to overcome it...though I think both teams will ultimately end up in the playoffs. But not having to travel to BUF or KC on WC weekend would be ideal. 

I tell you one thing.  I am much more confident in a victory than I was the first time around

[shasta519]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I tell you one thing.  I am much more confident in a victory than I was the first time around

I am more confident...but I also see TEN as an even opponent. With Henry running the ball...I just hope they aren’t down a couple scores...like against GB.

[Arodgers12]

11 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

I am more confident...but I also see TEN as an even opponent. With Henry running the ball...I just hope they aren’t down a couple scores...like against GB.

You guys will win the division over Tennessee.

[chickenMan]

On 11/22/2020 at 9:56 PM, 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 think Rivers staying depends on a lot of things. Most notably:

1. How Rivers plays the rest of the season

2. How well Jacob Eason is developing

3. Who is available in free agency

4. Who is available in the draft

5. Money

 

Either way, I have enjoyed watching Phil this year, and I trust Ballard’s decisions in regards to QB

[Stephen]

On 11/22/2020 at 10:06 PM, Jared Cisneros said:

Was talking to a friend about this on the phone about 30 minutes ago. Yeah, I'm more receptive to bringing him back now. He's doing a really good job for us! 

Waiting to  see how he does in titans raiders and Steelers  games

[shasta519]

8 minutes ago, Arodgers12 said:

You guys will win the division over Tennessee.

 

Have to win Sunday to do it I think. I think they can...but I don't think it's much more than a 55/45 at this point.

[shasta519]

10 minutes ago, chickenMan said:

I think Rivers staying depends on a lot of things. Most notably:

1. How Rivers plays the rest of the season

2. How well Jacob Eason is developing

3. Who is available in free agency

4. Who is available in the draft

5. Money

 

Either way, I have enjoyed watching Phil this year, and I trust Ballard’s decisions in regards to QB

 

The way I see it...regardless of whether they bring back Rivers...Ballard should still be looking to draft the next long-term QB. That would allow for that player to sit and learn for one season...if that is their intention. 

 

If Eason was that guy...then I think there would really be little reason to bring back Rivers...because he has already sat for a year behind Rivers. You would just have Eason take over and then sign a Fitzpatrick type-vet as backup/insurance...and go from there. 

 

Without many roster spots open to draft picks...I think you could see Ballard get aggressive in this upcoming draft...assuming there is a guy he likes.

 

 

[Nickster]

45 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

That is a moving target.  We have no idea today which College QBs will even be in the draft.  We also don't know which ones might rise up from unexpected places.  The favorite for the Heisman wasn't on many people's radar just a couple months ago.  

 

We also have no idea how our 4th round pick is performing.  We don't have a single hint even.  He could look like a washout or he could look like Mahommes Pt, 2.   Additionally, we have no idea what other QBs will be on the market for trade.  Would Matt Ryan be an option? Sam Darnold? etc. etc.  Those are just names we have no idea who will actually be available.  We also do not know for sure that Rivers will want to keep playing.  There's still at least 6 weeks to go.  Anything could happen.  Injury could quickly make him decide to move on.  He's never been hurt enough to miss a game.  A significant injury could make him pack it up.  We also don't know if he will hold up in general.  What if his arm fades significantly? It happens to the best.  Brady looked awful.  Manning got benched and barely made it through the playoffs his last year.  He was awful in the Super Bowl even though his defense won the game.  

 

We just don't know what options we'll have or what the circumstances will be.  We may see a massive salary cap reduction and they may go with a cheaper option out of necessity.  We have a lot of young players that need to be resigned.  One year QB versus 8+ more years with a key young player can change things.  

 

I am not anti Rivers, just the opposite.  I have said all year that when the oline was struggling early, his quick release made all the difference.  When people were calling for Jacoby, I said his slow release will no longer fly.   But I am also a realist.  We need a long term answer at QB.  Year to year is bad for everyone.  Each QB has pros and cons and we need to build a team that works with our QB's strengths.  I hope that Eason is thriving.   Otherwise, I hope we draft a young guy who is ready to go.  I am not a Darnold fan, but Ballard has a good track record at most positions.  Let's hope when he picks someone, whether it is Rivers or an unknown, they can keep this train rolling.  All that said, it is WAY too early to hitch the wagon for one last year with an immobile elderly RB.  

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said.  However, there have been 0 rookie QBs who have made the SB, and only 2, Mark Sanchez and Joe Flacco, have won more than 1 game in the playoffs.  SO the chances of a drafted rookie coming in next year and taking us past the wild card round seem pretty negligible.

 

Sure old man Rivers arm could fail.  Maybe Eason is ready to go next year.  That would probably be pretty shocking but it certainly would be a great boost to the org long term. Trading for a quality QB is possible but not likely.

 

Hopefully, Luck is bored.  That is really to me the only plausible way for us to significantly improve our QB situation next year.

Dak is available.  Other than that, I don't see much on the immediate horizon to compete IN 2021.

 

Bottom line, is most likely Rivers is our best option assuming he wants to play again.

[JPFolks]

8 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said.  However, there have been 0 rookie QBs who have made the SB, and only 2, Mark Sanchez and Joe Flacco, have won more than 1 game in the playoffs.  SO the chances of a drafted rookie coming in next year and taking us past the wild card round seem pretty negligible.

 

Sure old man Rivers arm could fail.  Maybe Eason is ready to go next year.  That would probably be pretty shocking but it certainly would be a great boost to the org long term. Trading for a quality QB is possible but not likely.

 

Hopefully, Luck is bored.  That is really to me the only plausible way for us to significantly improve our QB situation next year.

Dak is available.  Other than that, I don't see much on the immediate horizon to compete IN 2021.

 

Bottom line, is most likely Rivers is our best option assuming he wants to play again.

Well, Rivers has his best shot this year so he'll get his chance.  This roster is super young, he has a max of next year then a replacement would still have to be found. If he's ripping it effectively deep into the playoffs he'll likely come back.  If we're one and done, with this championship level D and OLine, if they can find a more promising option they should and will. 

[Nickster]

21 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

Well, Rivers has his best shot this year so he'll get his chance.  This roster is super young, he has a max of next year then a replacement would still have to be found. If he's ripping it effectively deep into the playoffs he'll likely come back.  If we're one and done, with this championship level D and OLine, if they can find a more promising option they should and will. 

No doubt.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, JPFolks said:

That is a moving target.  We have no idea today which College QBs will even be in the draft.  We also don't know which ones might rise up from unexpected places.  The favorite for the Heisman wasn't on many people's radar just a couple months ago.  

 

We also have no idea how our 4th round pick is performing.  We don't have a single hint even.  He could look like a washout or he could look like Mahommes Pt, 2.   Additionally, we have no idea what other QBs will be on the market for trade.  Would Matt Ryan be an option? Sam Darnold? etc. etc.  Those are just names we have no idea who will actually be available.  We also do not know for sure that Rivers will want to keep playing.  There's still at least 6 weeks to go.  Anything could happen.  Injury could quickly make him decide to move on.  He's never been hurt enough to miss a game.  A significant injury could make him pack it up.  We also don't know if he will hold up in general.  What if his arm fades significantly? It happens to the best.  Brady looked awful.  Manning got benched and barely made it through the playoffs his last year.  He was awful in the Super Bowl even though his defense won the game.  

 

We just don't know what options we'll have or what the circumstances will be.  We may see a massive salary cap reduction and they may go with a cheaper option out of necessity.  We have a lot of young players that need to be resigned.  One year QB versus 8+ more years with a key young player can change things.  

 

I am not anti Rivers, just the opposite.  I have said all year that when the oline was struggling early, his quick release made all the difference.  When people were calling for Jacoby, I said his slow release will no longer fly.   But I am also a realist.  We need a long term answer at QB.  Year to year is bad for everyone.  Each QB has pros and cons and we need to build a team that works with our QB's strengths.  I hope that Eason is thriving.   Otherwise, I hope we draft a young guy who is ready to go.  I am not a Darnold fan, but Ballard has a good track record at most positions.  Let's hope when he picks someone, whether it is Rivers or an unknown, they can keep this train rolling.  All that said, it is WAY too early to hitch the wagon for one last year with an immobile elderly RB.  

 

 

Ballard does have a good track record at most positions.  And he drafted Eason in the 4th rd. knowing he was going to sit for at least a year.  He obviously saw talent and he's counting on our coaches to elevate his game.  Time will tell but I think he's the guy.  Trust in Ballard as they saying goes.  

[gspdx]

I am not interested in worrying about the QB position for next year yet.  Rivers is playing good football, but I would like to see how he finishes the season.  Before I would make any new offer to Rivers I would need to ask a few questions:

• Does he have enough in the tank for another full season with a Superbowl run?
• Is this team in a position to make a Superbowl run?

If the answer to either of those questions ends up being no then I don't bring him back.  And it's not really me asking the questions - it's Colts management.

 

There are other guys out there we could bring in for cheaper if we feel Eason isn't ready.  I would even mind seeing Kaepernick get a look.

 

For me, if we aren't ready to make a real Superbowl run then all of this is just spending money.

[EastStreet]

On 11/22/2020 at 11:00 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That Jags game still bugs me, that is just how I am wired  

It bothers me too. All 3 losses were avoidable IMO, but yes, the first one was just bad.

[EastStreet]

On 11/22/2020 at 11:02 PM, Jared Cisneros said:

I was very vocal that people would be surprised when Rodgers scored at will on us today. He did just that in the first half and it looked bad. Luckily, we adjusted at halftime and turned the game around. Still, we have to play a full game in the playoffs Vs every team or we could make an early exit. My only small nitpick. Otherwise, they fought hard. Today showed we can be resilent, but the defense is probably a bit overrated and can be beat by a solid QB.

Yep. I'm still firmly of the belief we have a very good, but not "great" defense. We're 10ish, +/- 3 or 4 slots. Our rush D, IMO is better than our pass D. We let Rogers go 30+ above his average. We at least kept Henry to roughly his average running, but was a bit disappointed he AVG was well above AVG. If we were that good, we'd be holding those guys below their average. I'm just happy our offense is starting to emerge and we can keep up now. I think Rivers is starting to feel comfortable, and I think Reich is perhaps letting him be himself more than earlier.

[EastStreet]

On 11/23/2020 at 8:15 AM, Blueblood23 said:

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

Wilson and Trask are both interesting to me. One should be available middle of the 1st, which would not take a bunch to move it. I'm pretty happy with Rivers now, so all aboard bringing him back. The offense looks to turning the corner, and has actually carried the team a bit lately. The only reason to go QB in the 1st IMO is if they have doubts on Eason. 

[Nickster]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

The way I see it...regardless of whether they bring back Rivers...Ballard should still be looking to draft the next long-term QB. That would allow for that player to sit and learn for one season...if that is their intention. 

 

If Eason was that guy...then I think there would really be little reason to bring back Rivers...because he has already sat for a year behind Rivers. You would just have Eason take over and then sign a Fitzpatrick type-vet as backup/insurance...and go from there. 

 

Without many roster spots open to draft picks...I think you could see Ballard get aggressive in this upcoming draft...assuming there is a guy he likes.

 

 

Man I'm not so sure we can't compete like right now and next year.  Maybe I'm more impressed with the Colts than many are here.  

 

Look, lots of things would need to go right for us to beat KC in the playoffs, but I don't see any team including PITT that I wouldn't say that about.

 

I think we have a chance.  Now I could also see us bounce.

 

Some people seem to forget that we had a chance to get within 1 score of Balt but chose to go for it and were probably an RCH away from that forth down being a TD and narrowing the score to a FG.  SHoulda, Coulda, Woulda, I get that but we have certainly proven we can compete with everyone one but PITT and KC and we will get a chance in a month or so to test one of them.

 

We are way better than I thought.  I thought 1 and 3 in this for game stretch would be good for us.  Very encouraged right now.

[chickenMan]

4 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

The way I see it...regardless of whether they bring back Rivers...Ballard should still be looking to draft the next long-term QB. That would allow for that player to sit and learn for one season...if that is their intention. 

 

If Eason was that guy...then I think there would really be little reason to bring back Rivers...because he has already sat for a year behind Rivers. You would just have Eason take over and then sign a Fitzpatrick type-vet as backup/insurance...and go from there. 

 

Without many roster spots open to draft picks...I think you could see Ballard get aggressive in this upcoming draft...assuming there is a guy he likes.

 

 

Yeah I suppose so with Eason. I would think that you would have to REALLY like what you’re seeing from Eason....this team is ready to win now, and if you’re a GM you don’t want to waste one or more years on a guy that doesn’t pan out; because of that, I think if Eason isn’t there yet, you either try to get a better guy in draft or FA or sign Rivers for another year and let Eason develop more.

 

This is all my opinion and I’m obviously not a GM, so maybe I’m crazy

 

Also, the fact that we almost never hear about Eason and how he’s doing is very weird to me. I know the Colts play things close to the vest, but if Eason is doing well I’d like to know lol....

[krunk]

5 hours ago, luv_pony_express said:

I think we’d be a better team with Brissett.  And I’m not a huge Brissett fan.

 

Rivers has been up and down.  Not horrible.  But not great, either.  His arm clearly isn’t what it used to be.  His mobility is easily the worst in the league - and his arm doesn’t make up for that like it used to.  If Father Time hasn’t caught up to him yet, he’s nipping on his heels.

 

Put me down as hoping to see:

 

1) Somebody not currently on the roster (Darnold?)

 

2) The better of Brissett or Eason

Yeah i give this post a thumbs down and a ha ha face!

[ADnum1]

On 11/23/2020 at 7:36 PM, Superman said:

 

Rivers doesn't have this team a 4th seed. The defense is the strength of the team. Rivers is good enough, so far... Reminder that the Chargers went 1-6 down the stretch last year. Let's not start high fiving because we won a few games. We don't know if this team is legitimately good enough to compete in the AFC yet.

Yes its Rivers that has this team at 7-3.

 

Did you not watch the Bengals game down 21-0 and see Rivers lead an amazing comeback ?

 

Did you not watch the the lions game and see Rivers put up 3 TDs in the SECOND quarter ?

 

Did you not see Rivers leading us to victory over the titans on the road ?

 

Did you not see us down 28-14 in the FIRST HALF of the GB game and Rivers pick this team up and carry us on his shoulders for an amazing comeback win ? The defense that gave up 28 points in the FIRST HALF ???

 

Rivers is directly responsible for us being 7-3, no one else.

 

What is it with you hardened Colts fans ? All you all have ever done is trash Rivers at every opportunity when all he has ever done is played his heart out for this team. 

 

Let me say this. Andrew Luck is not walking through that door.  Peyton Manning is not walking through that door.

 

What is it going to take for some of you Colts fans to start supporting Rivers and giving him the credit he deserves?

 

Let me turn this question back on you. What would the Colts record be without Philip Rivers ?

[Mighty Blue]

Okay,no.

I want a championship!

If he does not win the big game 

then I don’t want him back.

Before the idea of his return, and previous debates about the HOF, Ersay and company need to start Plan B right now

for future draft pick for quarterback.

Okay, I’ll do this...I’ll go back and listen to Rivers interviews( anyone please send) if he would work hard to bring home a championship prior to the start of training camp this season( might ease my opinion a bit)

Just having a good season is good enough and if that’s what Colts fans want then, ok.

Come from behind wins make a big difference but if our team plays like they did Sunday, then Rivers can win the big game...okay, I’ll say it, Will Win The Super Bowl!

Now, which of my fellow Colts fans believe Rivers can bring home The Lombardi Trophy...this season?

Um, win this season’s Super Bowl!