Qb for next year/QB class of 2021 (merge)

[aaron11]

9 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

 

Irsay sometimes makes comments that don't have a lot of sense to them. My memory is pretty good and I remember him saying that he was open to keeping Manning and drafting Luck. 

i could have seen that being ok for a year or two tops.  peyton would have started at first and if his play started to decline they release him and luck takes over.  if peyton kept playing well you trade luck after a year or two

 

it might have frustrated some people but i dont think it would have been a completely horrible idea

[BeanDiasucci]

1 minute ago, Fluke_33 said:

Please get your facts straight before posting.  it is actually one rush attempt for -1.  he has no pass attempts.  lol (the fact is true on the rush/pass but sarcastic on you checking facts)

Oh, you are right. I read his stats wrong. They look a little strange when you have a quarterback who was in the league three seasons and doesn't have any passing attempts. It threw me off. 

[Dogg63]

24 minutes ago, BeanDiasucci said:

They look a little strange when you have a quarterback who was in the league three seasons and doesn't have any passing attempts.

But but, now I'm all corn-fused.

 

I mean, he was, clearly, a significantly better quarterback than JB...

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

12 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Luck had fun interviews. One of my favorites was when a reporter asked him if he had any long conversations w Nelson.

 

Luck is very smart too 

I didn’t mean Luck wasn’t smart. You can hear the coach come out in Rivers. You get a very similiar vibe as we had with Manning. I was very skeptical of rivers but I am glad he is here. It’s been nice to have experienced and pretty good QB here.  The difference with him and Jacoby in interviews is night and day. 

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I was just going to say the same thing. 

 

I don't think Irsay's media statements should be latched on to as potential directives for decisions that are several months down the road. Sometimes he's just talking. He's definitely part of the final decision making process, but I feel like that process hasn't really started in earnest yet.

 

Edit: I've anticipated all along that JB would be gone, but there will be little to no money out there for him this offseason, so I could see him staying. And while I don't like how it affects the depth chart, his specialized role in the offense has worked pretty well in the second half of the season.

 

I doubt the Colts would keep 3 QB's active in order to keep that Brissett package. Thus it's my opinion that if they like Eason and he's the back-up , Brissett is gone. Plus could be that Brissett is not in love with how the Colts signed him and yanked his starting role after 6-7 bad games that he played with an injury ? Not to say the Colts didn't do the right thing as I agreed . Just saying that maybe Brissett may have saw that a little "differently ?" 

[dw49]

56 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i could have seen that being ok for a year or two tops.  peyton would have started at first and if his play started to decline they release him and luck takes over.  if peyton kept playing well you trade luck after a year or two

 

it might have frustrated some people but i dont think it would have been a completely horrible idea

 

I believe it would have involved picking up an option that committed us to at least 2 years of PM ... probably 3. It was a 4 year deal with 28 million due that March. It simply didn't work or make any sense to hand Manning 28 mill in March when you weren't even sure he could come back at full strength . Besides that ,there was  no way Luck's agent would have been good with his client sitting at least 2 years. 

[aaron11]

13 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

I believe it would have involved picking up an option that committed us to at least 2 years of PM ... probably 3. It was a 4 year deal with 28 million due that March. It simply didn't work or make any sense to hand Manning 28 mill in March when you weren't even sure he could come back at full strength . Besides that ,there was  no way Luck's agent would have been good with his client sitting at least 2 years. 

it was an unusual situation, they might have considered it because it wasnt clear what was going on with peyton.  if jim says they could have done, then they probably could have.  even if lucks camp wasnt crazy about it

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, dw49 said:

I doubt the Colts would keep 3 QB's active in order to keep that Brissett package. Thus it's my opinion that if they like Eason and he's the back-up , Brissett is gone. Plus could be that Brissett is not in love with how the Colts signed him and yanked his starting role after 6-7 bad games that he played with an injury ? Not to say the Colts didn't do the right thing as I agreed . Just saying that maybe Brissett may have saw that a little "differently ?" 

 

Active on gameday? No. But unless Rivers isn't playing, what reason is there for Eason to be active? Even next year, if Rivers is healthy enough to play, Eason isn't going to get any playing time. So what's the difference between this year and next? Knowing what we know right now about Eason -- which is basically nothing -- JB is the better option as the backup.

 

All things being equal, I would expect JB to want to move on. I don't know if he has a problem with the organization replacing him this year, but as a competitor I'm sure he wants to be on a team that offers a better chance for him to actually play QB on Sundays. No one is going to sign him as their starter, but maybe a team with a tenuous QB situation, as opposed to the Colts where Rivers never misses games, and they probably want to get to the young guy if Rivers isn't available.

 

But there won't be a robust backup QB market like there has been in the past, money-wise. Bridgewater got $7.5m to back up Brees last year. Keenum got three years, $18m from Cleveland. Mariota got $7.5m from the Raiders. No one is paying that in 2021, I don't think. 

 

So if JB really, really wants a chance to play in 2021, he'll probably have to play for around $2m-3m on a one year deal, with no guarantee to make the final roster, and for a team that probably has a different long term plan at QB.

 

One last thing about his opinion of how the Colts handled him, they paid him very handsomely for two years when they didn't really have to, threw the full support of the organization behind him, and kind of go out of their way to make him a part of the weekly gameplan. I don't think he'll find better overall treatment anywhere else. He might see it differently, but I like to think he's not blinded to the obvious.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

it was an unusual situation, they might have considered it because it wasnt clear what was going on with peyton.  if jim says they could have done, then they probably could have.  even if lucks camp wasnt crazy about it

 

They "could have" kept both, but it wouldn't have made a lot of sense for the Colts. And at the end of the day, that's why they didn't, despite Irsay's earlier comments that it was an option. (By the way, I spent a couple weeks hoping they would keep both. But eventually it was obvious that it wasn't the best idea. Things worked out well for all parties.)

 

So as it relates to this situation, Irsay mentioning it as an option in December probably doesn't mean a whole lot about the strategy they employ in March.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Peyton doesn’t win a second SB if he had stayed here. 

[dw49]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Active on gameday? No. But unless Rivers isn't playing, what reason is there for Eason to be active? Even next year, if Rivers is healthy enough to play, Eason isn't going to get any playing time. So what's the difference between this year and next? Knowing what we know right now about Eason -- which is basically nothing -- JB is the better option as the backup.

 

All things being equal, I would expect JB to want to move on. I don't know if he has a problem with the organization replacing him this year, but as a competitor I'm sure he wants to be on a team that offers a better chance for him to actually play QB on Sundays. No one is going to sign him as their starter, but maybe a team with a tenuous QB situation, as opposed to the Colts where Rivers never misses games, and they probably want to get to the young guy if Rivers isn't available.

 

But there won't be a robust backup QB market like there has been in the past, money-wise. Bridgewater got $7.5m to back up Brees last year. Keenum got three years, $18m from Cleveland. Mariota got $7.5m from the Raiders. No one is paying that in 2021, I don't think. 

 

So if JB really, really wants a chance to play in 2021, he'll probably have to play for around $2m-3m on a one year deal, with no guarantee to make the final roster, and for a team that probably has a different long term plan at QB.

 

One last thing about his opinion of how the Colts handled him, they paid him very handsomely for two years when they didn't really have to, threw the full support of the organization behind him, and kind of go out of their way to make him a part of the weekly gameplan. I don't think he'll find better overall treatment anywhere else. He might see it differently, but I like to think he's not blinded to the obvious.

 

I totally think Brissett was treated fairly , just saying that he might have thought he deserved another year with the starting job. As to next year , yeah they could eave eason inactive and if Rivers was hurt , it would only be that game that they were committed to Brissett as the back-up. All said and done , I would gladly bet 2k to 1 k that Brissett signs elsewhere. And yes I agree that it's probably a 1 year deal between 2 and 4 mill.

[dw49]

3 hours ago, aaron11 said:

it was an unusual situation, they might have considered it because it wasnt clear what was going on with peyton.  if jim says they could have done, then they probably could have.  even if lucks camp wasnt crazy about it

 

Yeah , Jim said early on that they could have done it. So did a few of the talking heads. When you looked at the whole picture , it would have been ridiculous . Further more that roster was in shambles from 3 years of Polian nepotism. If you kept Manning , you would have been insane not to trade that pick to make the team competitive. All said it would have been prohibitive to sign Manning to a 4 year extension in March of that year.

[TheNextGM]

1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

Peyton doesn’t win a second SB if he had stayed here. 

Strong disagree. 
If Indy chose to keep Manning and trade the Luck pick they could have added significant pieces.

[Moosejawcolt]

22 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Really. They will eventually figure it out. Lol

I didnt say they wouldnt. I was referring to what we have now. A 39 year old who probably has one more year in him. So that will probably mean Eason sits for another year. After 2021. I am not sure the future qb is on the roster. History would say not

[danlhart87]

4 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I didnt say they wouldnt. I was referring to what we have now. A 39 year old who probably has one more year in him. So that will probably mean Eason sits for another year. After 2021. I am not sure the future qb is on the roster. History would say not

The options are open! What I was asking before is what are your opinions on what you think the Colts should do?

[Moosejawcolt]

10 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

The options are open! What I was asking before is what are your opinions on what you think the Colts should do?

Do i see the Colts winning the Superbowl in the next 2 years with Rivers as their qb? Well he didnt win one with the Chargers in his 18 years playing with them. I really think if the Colts were that high on Eason, they would let Rivers walk after this year. Honestly, I am not sure whst the  long term what the plan is. 4th round qbs dont, statistically, amount to much. I dont think Eason is thr answer. They will probably just ride with Rivers as long as they can.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Do i see the Colts winning the Superbowl in the next 2 years with Rivers as their qb? Well he didnt win one with the Chargers in his 18 years playing with them. I really think if the Colts were that high on Eason, they would let Rivers walk after this year. Honestly, I am not sure whst the  long term what the plan is. 4th round qbs dont, statistically, amount to much. I dont think Eason is thr answer. They will probably just ride with Rivers as long as they can.

You still didn’t answer the  question. Just because you don’t see the future yet doesn’t mean Ballard doesn’t have a plan.

[danlhart87]

4 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

You still didn’t answer the  question. Just because you don’t see the future yet doesn’t mean Ballard doesn’t have a plan.

In a way he did he's not quite sure which im fine with 

[richard pallo]

After reading Reichs remarks about how he thinks Rivers could play another couple of years on top of how well he currently is playing pretty much kills the Wentz or Stafford talk.  I don't see them going there no matter how much people try to make the argument.  If he was having a bad year maybe but I can't see it right now.  I think the team thinks they can win the SB with Rivers either this year or next year if they add a few more skill players.  If they want to develop a QB to take over for Rivers JB is not the answer.  They are through with that road.  Eason possibly but who knows what they think of him.  If there is any doubt the only potential available veteran that makes sense is Darnold.  He sits behind Rivers as the No 2 next year as Reich and company work up his game.  The cost is not exorbitant and the ceiling is very high at age 23.  Ballard has his Jets connection as well so if I was a betting man and I am not I would say the front runner to be a Colt next year is Darnold.  

[Moosejawcolt]

13 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

You still didn’t answer the  question. Just because you don’t see the future yet doesn’t mean Ballard doesn’t have a plan.

Oh every GM has a plan with regards to  acquiring a franchise qb. The only problem is that getting that guy can take numerous drafts. There r numerous teams that have to go decades without a franchise qb

[coltsblue1844]

23 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Peyton doesn’t win a second SB if he had stayed here. 

Not necessarily true... Do you remember just how much the Rams got for that #2 pick?  It was enough to take them from the 2nd to worst record, to the Super Bowl in just a few years... had we kept Peyton and traded the #1 pick/Luck? Just imagine the haul we would have had...and now, knowing that Luck retired early, we would definitely have been set for the future... would have been the biggest draft haul in the history of the NFL past or future!   But we didnt know then what we know now

 

But let's not forget, we were just one year removed from a Super Bowl with that mostly same roster... imagine adding a huge draft/player haul for that #1 pick...i could see us having made/won another Super Bowl or maybe two, with all of that.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, coltsblue1844 said:

But let's not forget, we were just one year removed from a Super Bowl with that mostly same roster

 

We were three years removed from that Super Bowl (2009 to 2012), that roster was broken down and lost a playoff game to the Jets led by Mark Sanchez in 2010, then went 0-13 in 2011. We had no OL, our best defensive players from 2009 were starting to get old and breaking down (Mathis and Bethea excluded), Dallas Clark and Joseph Addai were both done....

 

Grigson overturned most of that roster in 2012, and it was still pretty thin at a bunch of critical spots. Luck was magical as a rookie, but that roster was a mess. 

 

Give us a haul for the Luck pick, and let Manning play himself back into shape. Don't forget that we were tight on cap space, and would have been even moreso with Manning staying. We would have to nail every single transaction in that offseason. And even then, the idea that we were close to being a SB contender, even with Manning, is kind of unreasonable.

[Luck is Good]

Peyton would’ve been killed behind that same offensive line. If not for Andrew, Colts wouldn’t have been as competitive that season

[SteelCityColt]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We were three years removed from that Super Bowl (2009 to 2012), that roster was broken down and lost a playoff game to the Jets led by Mark Sanchez in 2010, then went 0-13 in 2011. We had no OL, our best defensive players from 2009 were starting to get old and breaking down (Mathis and Bethea excluded), Dallas Clark and Joseph Addai were both done....

 

Grigson overturned most of that roster in 2012, and it was still pretty thin at a bunch of critical spots. Luck was magical as a rookie, but that roster was a mess. 

 

Give us a haul for the Luck pick, and let Manning play himself back into shape. Don't forget that we were tight on cap space, and would have been even moreso with Manning staying. We would have to nail every single transaction in that offseason. And even then, the idea that we were close to being a SB contender, even with Manning, is kind of unreasonable.

 

This is why I've also disliked the 'proof' we tanked in 2011 because the 2012 made the playoffs. The 2012 was a massive outlier in terms of over performance. I think it might have been better long term if we'd had a worse record in 2012. 

1 minute ago, Luck is Good said:

Peyton would’ve been killed behind that same offensive line. If not for Andrew, Colts wouldn’t have been as competitive that season

 

The counter point I'd add to that was both by Luck's own tendency, and the maddening offense of Arians, TTT was pretty high. Manning hid a lot of bad o lines by getting rid quickly. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

This is why I've also disliked the 'proof' we tanked in 2011 because the 2012 made the playoffs. The 2012 was a massive outlier in terms of over performance. I think it might have been better long term if we'd had a worse record in 2012. 

 

I've wondered that also. The team kind of went into 'win now' mode because of how good Luck was, but the roster wasn't ready yet. 

 

End of the day, I think Grigson's scouting and drafting proved to be terrible, so I'm not sure it would have mattered what mode he was in either way. That 2013 draft was bad for a lot of teams, but it was particularly bad for the Colts, basically every pick. Maybe the Richardson trade doesn't happen...

 

I think we could have made a run at it with some better decision making in that offseason. But that means basically nailing every move, it means better coaching, and some better luck with injuries (Reggie going down was devastating). 

[Four2itus]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

We were three years removed from that Super Bowl (2009 to 2012), that roster was broken down and lost a playoff game to the Jets led by Mark Sanchez in 2010, then went 0-13 in 2011. We had no OL, our best defensive players from 2009 were starting to get old and breaking down (Mathis and Bethea excluded), Dallas Clark and Joseph Addai were both done....

 

Grigson overturned most of that roster in 2012, and it was still pretty thin at a bunch of critical spots. Luck was magical as a rookie, but that roster was a mess. 

 

Give us a haul for the Luck pick, and let Manning play himself back into shape. Don't forget that we were tight on cap space, and would have been even moreso with Manning staying. We would have to nail every single transaction in that offseason. And even then, the idea that we were close to being a SB contender, even with Manning, is kind of unreasonable.

I still think moving on from Peyton was the right decision. However, the Grigson/Pagano decisions powerfully affected that "right" decision. 

[SteelCityColt]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I've wondered that also. The team kind of went into 'win now' mode because of how good Luck was, but the roster wasn't ready yet. 

 

End of the day, I think Grigson's scouting and drafting proved to be terrible, so I'm not sure it would have mattered what mode he was in either way. That 2013 draft was bad for a lot of teams, but it was particularly bad for the Colts, basically every pick. Maybe the Richardson trade doesn't happen...

 

I think we could have made a run at it with some better decision making in that offseason. But that means basically nailing every move, it means better coaching, and some better luck with injuries (Reggie going down was devastating). 

 

Agreed, it's a fool's errand to get drawn into the 'N if L' too much, and ultimately Grigson proved he (and his team) were poor at assessing and drafting talent. Although the Richardson trade not happening, and let's say not drafting Werner because we draft higher in 2013 might have had some impact. 

 

That all being said, we probably still bring in Pep who was unaspiring and wanted to play ball that completely didn't suit the roster we had, and as you say you can't legislate for injury. Reggie was a huge loss as he was Luck's absolute go to when needed. 

 

With Luck we probably always had half a shot of being competitive, but our failure to protect him ended up with our own version of 'Carr-ing' him. Not that I'm suggesting Grigson didn't try to address the line, he was just very bad at it.  

 

I stand by too, 2012 will always be one of the best seasons I've had as a fan. 

[Luck is Good]

8 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

This is why I've also disliked the 'proof' we tanked in 2011 because the 2012 made the playoffs. The 2012 was a massive outlier in terms of over performance. I think it might have been better long term if we'd had a worse record in 2012. 

 

The counter point I'd add to that was both by Luck's own tendency, and the maddening offense of Arians, TTT was pretty high. Manning hid a lot of bad o lines by getting rid quickly. 

2012 didn’t end with a SB championship. However, that was one of my favorite seasons

[SteelCityColt]

Just now, Luck is Good said:

2012 didn’t end with a SB championship. However, that was one of my favorite seasons

 

Beat me to it 

[Luck is Good]

Just now, SteelCityColt said:

 

Beat me to it 

Just the fact that the team rallied for Pagano. They fought for a championship and a person. He meant way more than just a coach at the time

[coltsblue1844]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

We were three years removed from that Super Bowl (2009 to 2012), that roster was broken down and lost a playoff game to the Jets led by Mark Sanchez in 2010, then went 0-13 in 2011. We had no OL, our best defensive players from 2009 were starting to get old and breaking down (Mathis and Bethea excluded), Dallas Clark and Joseph Addai were both done....

 

Grigson overturned most of that roster in 2012, and it was still pretty thin at a bunch of critical spots. Luck was magical as a rookie, but that roster was a mess. 

 

Give us a haul for the Luck pick, and let Manning play himself back into shape. Don't forget that we were tight on cap space, and would have been even moreso with Manning staying. We would have to nail every single transaction in that offseason. And even then, the idea that we were close to being a SB contender, even with Manning, is kind of unreasonable.

Any team that had Peyton Manning, was close to being a SB contender.  The 2010 Broncos started the season 4-8...they were 4-12 the previous year...add Peyton Manning in his first year back, and they werre 13-3... the Colts were 10-6 in 2010 and lost the playoff game vs the Jets because of a HORRIBLE timeout called by Caldwell, after Peyton had lead a "should have been" game winning drive.

 

My point is,  with the haul we would have received (would have been quite a bit more than even what the Rams got for #2, obviously), plus Manning and some re-shaping of the roster... in that 4 year period that Peyton played for the Broncos, i think we could have made at least one Super Bowl here in Indy... The Rams got the #6 and #38 picks plus the following two years 1st round picks from the Redskins (just think what more we could have got for #1/Luck! And some of those picks could have even been flipped for players to speed up the reworking of the roster to win sooner) Remember, had Peyton stayed, we most definitely would not have had Grigson or Pagano here...and that in and of itself, is worth a couple wins.

 

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, coltsblue1844 said:

Any team that had Peyton Manning, was close to being a SB contender.  The 2010 Broncos started the season 4-8...they were 4-12 the previous year...add Peyton Manning in his first year back, and they werre 13-3... the Colts were 10-6 in 2010 and lost the playoff game vs the Jets because of a HORRIBLE timeout called by Caldwell, after Peyton had lead a "should have been" game winning drive.

 

My point is,  with the haul we would have received (would have been quite a bit more than even what the Rams got for #2, obviously), plus Manning and some re-shaping of the roster... in that 4 year period that Peyton played for the Broncos, i think we could have made at least one Super Bowl here in Indy... The Rams got the #6 and #38 picks plus the following two years 1st round picks from the Redskins (just think what more we could have got for #1/Luck! And some of those picks could have even been flipped for players to speed up the reworking of the roster to win sooner) Remember, had Peyton stayed, we most definitely would not have had Grigson or Pagano here...and that in and of itself, is worth a couple wins.

 

I get what you're saying, I just disagree -- strongly -- about the quality of that roster. The last year Manning was healthy with the Colts, we struggled to get to 10 wins (remember, he had that three game stretch where he threw 11 picks), the OL was awful, and we lost in the wild card. Sure, we had a chance to win that game, but barely, and 16 points at home was very substandard. That team was a shadow of 2009, plus Manning on fumes. 

 

And comparing that team to the Broncos doesn't make sense. It's a completely different roster and coaching staff.

 

What I'm saying is that even with Manning and a bunch of picks in return for Luck, we still have to nail the 2012 and 2013 offseasons, we need good coaching (and by the way, if Irsay wanted to keep Manning and trade away Luck, we would likely have kept the Polians and Caldwell), plus some serious luck, to have any real chance at competing deep in the playoffs.

 

And don't make me defend Grigson and Pagano. We won 11 games each of those first three seasons, with a roster that needed a lot of work. So if you want to replace the Polians and Caldwell with a team that isn't Grigson/Pagano, be advised that it gets much worse than Grigson/Pagano from 2012-2014. 

[danlhart87]

https://nflmocks.com/2020/12/19/2021-nfl-draft-offense-way-mock-draft/amp/7/

[ColtJax]

Rivers is a decent QB at this stage in his career. He's more known for checking down to a 3 yard pass than throwing the top off. He's also known for trying to throw the ball into tight windows when he no longer has the arm for it. If we can get Stafford for our #1 pick, DO IT!! Wentz we might actually get a 3rd pick from the Eagles to take. Next year Rivers is going to be that much slower and his arm that much weaker, we really do need an upgrade..

[danlhart87]

https://www.totalprosports.com/2020/12/20/report-carson-wentz-demanding-out-of-philly-because-jalen-hurts-took-his-starting-qb-job/

 

Can't say I'm surprised 

[w87r]

8 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

https://www.totalprosports.com/2020/12/20/report-carson-wentz-demanding-out-of-philly-because-jalen-hurts-took-his-starting-qb-job/

 

Can't say I'm surprised 

Not to surprising at all, the guy just oozes good teammate. Last person I want near our organization.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

Not to surprising at all, the guy just oozes good teammate. Last person I want near our organization.

I feel sorry for Eagles Fans 

[w87r]

7 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

I feel sorry for Eagles Fans 

Why?

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, w87r said:

Why?

They have to deal with Wentz and/or Hurts

[w87r]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

They have to deal with Wentz and/or Hurts

Hopefully he don't become our problem.

 

 

As far as Hurts? That is tbd, but started off with a big win last week. I've been debating picking him up in FF, as Matt Ryan and Big Ben are scaring me this 2nd week of round 1 playoffs begin.