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

[John Waylon 1,825]

50 minutes ago, w87r said:

The problem with that is Darnold has a 5th year $25m option, so bringing him to sit, would put us in almost the same position as we are with Eason. Not knowing what we have 

 

Im all for bringing in Darnold and his $4.7m contract. Would allow us to keep our own and add a few other options, and we might luck out and Darnold be the future QB. Cheap gamble on our end. Low risk potential high reward.

I mean we just did that with Brissett, and we do have the cap space to do it if they decide that’s the gamble they want to take, so I’m not terribly gun-shy to the idea. 
 

I just want them to be able to see and admit defeat like they did with Jacoby if that is indeed the way they go with it. And since they’ve already shown their not afraid to do that...

 

Its definitely a gamble, but if that does happen to be the gamble Ballard takes I’ll ride the train as far as it goes. He’s earned at least that much from me. 

[Aces101 198]

I posted this in the RIvers retirement thread, but here are my 2 cents:

 

Re-sign Jacoby Brissett for a minimal salary and tell him he will need to compete for the starting QB job while keeping Eason in the fray. This keeps a veteran presence on the team and a guy who could help out a young QB room.

 

Draft:

Draft a WR1 with our pick in Round 1 - the team needs weapons regardless who the QB is

 

Trade up to the end of Round 1 or to the top of Round 2 and draft Trask - accurate pocket passer who can run this type of offense almost immediately or maybe sit 1 year if needed

 

The QB room would be Trask on a rookie deal, Eason in his 2nd year on a rookie deal, and a fairly cheap veteran in Brissett. This will keep the salary for our QBs pretty low, allowing free agency money to be spent elsewhere.

 

Free Agency:

Sign a veteran Left Tackle who can immediately start - keeps the rest of a very good O-Line intact and should protect the QB while continuing to be a force in the running game

 

Sign Mack to a cheap, team-friendly deal to really commit to the ground game to help out a young QB - Taylor, Mack, and Hines will be a great trio of RBs that this team can rely on and win

[Stephen 1,875]

1 minute ago, Aces101 said:

I posted this in the RIvers retirement thread, but here are my 2 cents:

 

Re-sign Jacoby Brissett for a minimal salary and tell him he will need to compete for the starting QB job while keeping Eason in the fray. This keeps a veteran presence on the team and a guy who could help out a young QB room.

 

Draft:

Draft a WR1 with our pick in Round 1 - the team needs weapons regardless who the QB is

 

Trade up to the end of Round 1 or to the top of Round 2 and draft Trask - accurate pocket passer who can run this type of offense almost immediately or maybe sit 1 year if needed

 

The QB room would be Trask on a rookie deal, Eason in his 2nd year on a rookie deal, and a fairly cheap veteran in Brissett. This will keep the salary for our QBs pretty low, allowing free agency money to be spent elsewhere.

 

Free Agency:

Sign a veteran Left Tackle who can immediately start - keeps the rest of a very good O-Line intact and should protect the QB while continuing to be a force in the running game

 

Sign Mack to a cheap, team-friendly deal to really commit to the ground game to help out a young QB - Taylor, Mack, and Hines will be a great trio of RBs that this team can rely on and win

I like trask to. I'll have to do some research on some of the other guys incase we draft some guy I haven't heard of

[stitches 8,431]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think Stafford has four or five really good years left, and is playing well right now, so I have him ahead of Wentz. But he probably would cost more.

I agree, I'm just not sure with all our young players' contracts pending going the Stafford route wouldn't limit us by taking away both cap AND high value cost controlled assett(1st rounder+). But having a very good QB is still priority so... that's why I'm putting him pretty high on my list... In reality, the first 3 of my options(meaning Stafford is included) are the only truly desireable ones. The rest are varying degrees of acceptable to meh to depressing. 

 

Quote

I don't want Darnold. For a late pick, sure, but in three years, he hasn't done anything in the NFL. I lean more toward him not ever being good.

I'm still willing to give him a shot, if he's not too expensive. But it would still be just a shot and I wouldn't want to give up serious value for him. I think Gase is a truly horrible coach and there have been some good stretches of Darnold play that give glimmers of hope. But overall I agree... he's not really a great option.

Quote

If I had to guess, I'd say Matt Ryan goes nowhere. But physically, he can still play.

 

The reason I have Ryan lower than Darnold is that I think if we get him, he will likely give us a year or two and we will be right back where we are now. And at this point I just want a long-term solution. Ryan has no chance of being that. Darnold has a slim chance. Plus it will be more costly to get Ryan than Darnold. 

Quote

Carr and Garappolo are good options, but have lower ceilings.

Low ceiling, big contract. This is one of the worst positions to be in IMO. It limits you both play-wise and cap-wise. 

Quote

No thanks on Mariota, Winston, or Brissett. I wouldn't even spend the staff's time on them as potential starters. I'd rather commit to one of your top three options and go get your guy.

Yep, the last several options are more like... last resort... if I have to stomach this I will but I won't like it. 

[twfish 1,127]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

No one that's writing off Wentz knows what they're talking about. 

Ehhh, I'm not in the camp to say he sucks but he is currently a broken QB. I believe Brett Kollman has a great video on him and his footwork and how much of an impact that is having on his throwing motion, accuracy and delivery of the ball. My assumption is he's injured something in that area and is either rehabbing  it or needs to get comfortable and go through the basics to get it back. There are alot of excuses to be made for him such as a not so good o-line and a very young receiving core. IF he were to get cut I would be all about bringing him in and restructuring. However between his injury history, regression in play, draft capital to get him and his salary I have written him off. Honestly his injury history is one of the biggest factors for me.

[twfish 1,127]

8 minutes ago, Aces101 said:

I posted this in the RIvers retirement thread, but here are my 2 cents:

 

Re-sign Jacoby Brissett for a minimal salary and tell him he will need to compete for the starting QB job while keeping Eason in the fray. This keeps a veteran presence on the team and a guy who could help out a young QB room.

 

Draft:

Draft a WR1 with our pick in Round 1 - the team needs weapons regardless who the QB is

 

Trade up to the end of Round 1 or to the top of Round 2 and draft Trask - accurate pocket passer who can run this type of offense almost immediately or maybe sit 1 year if needed

 

The QB room would be Trask on a rookie deal, Eason in his 2nd year on a rookie deal, and a fairly cheap veteran in Brissett. This will keep the salary for our QBs pretty low, allowing free agency money to be spent elsewhere.

 

Free Agency:

Sign a veteran Left Tackle who can immediately start - keeps the rest of a very good O-Line intact and should protect the QB while continuing to be a force in the running game

 

Sign Mack to a cheap, team-friendly deal to really commit to the ground game to help out a young QB - Taylor, Mack, and Hines will be a great trio of RBs that this team can rely on and win

Trask wont last that long. There are a lot of QB needy teams in that range. I am honestly not sure if he makes it to our pick the way QB's fly off the shelves 

[coltsfanatic24 107]

Trading for Stafford would be my first option. If he’s not available then I would just prefer to go with the draft. I would certainly pass on Wentz and Darnold. 

[danlhart87 8,719]

1 minute ago, twfish said:

Trask wont last that long. There are a lot of QB needy teams in that range. I am honestly not sure if he makes it to our pick the way QB's fly off the shelves 

I actually think Trask will be day 2 pick 

[Superman 9,409]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yep, the last several options are more like... last resort... if I have to stomach this I will but I won't like it. 

 

Agreed all around. And of course, I think the most desirable option is to identify your guy in the draft and go get him.

[RollerColt 2,676]

Well, I guess one positive out of all of this is that Philip made the decision right at the start of the offseason, which gives us much needed time. 

[danlhart87 8,719]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Agreed all around. And of course, I think the most desirable option is to identify your guy in the draft and go get him.

Ballard hopefully is aggressive when it comes to getting our next QB. Whether its the draft or trade or both.

 

 

[twfish 1,127]

3 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

I actually think Trask will be day 2 pick 

His biggest weakness is he is not as dynamic of a QB, however i think his arm talent and his ability to read a defense is incredible. I need to watch more film of everyone but for this team to come out and start day one i like him more than Lance... Is there going to be a run on QB's like the 18 draft? Or will it stay top heavy like it was last year and guys fall to the second third and fourth that we all believed were first and fringe 2nd round players..

[danlhart87 8,719]

1 minute ago, twfish said:

His biggest weakness is he is not as dynamic of a QB, however i think his arm talent and his ability to read a defense is incredible. I need to watch more film of everyone but for this team to come out and start day one i like him more than Lance... Is there going to be a run on QB's like the 18 draft? Or will it stay top heavy like it was last year and guys fall to the second third and fourth that we all believed were first and fringe 2nd round players..

My rankings currently

 

Lawrence 1

Wilson 1

Fields 1

Lance 1

Jones 1 - 2

Trask 2 - 3

[stitches 8,431]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed all around. And of course, I think the most desirable option is to identify your guy in the draft and go get him.

That last part IMO is the most important one and an option that the more I think about the more it becomes clear as day is the best one for the team. It just makes too much sense and the class is too good. What's worrying is that there are about 15 teams with unsettled QB situation or aging QBs that might be lining up to get one of those QBs too... so... it might be hard to get in position for one, but at the end of the day that's part of Ballard's job and why he's being paid his money. 

[danlhart87 8,719]

If Colts go into the draft without a definite starter you can expect them to come out with one. I really hope Colts go young.

 

Average AFC QB is 26.75

[iuswingman 46]

42 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I just watched a bunch of him, with coaches film. I'm gonna make a separate post, maybe later today. He had some physical and likely some mental issues in 2020, but there was a lot going on with the Eagles. For him to get back to playing well, he has to make some serious corrections, but I don't see a broken QB. I see a guy who hasn't been coached in a couple years.

 

 

Don't want Hurts. I think it's crazy to want Hurts, while writing off Wentz...

 

The assumption was if Philly was keeping Wentz then I was thinking maybe Hurts is available then.

 

I thought Hurts looked pretty good finishing the season and he's still young.  

 

We don't know if Philly will part with either but they probably have one that is more available than the other.

[Stoney 72]

On 12/10/2020 at 2:29 PM, DougDew said:

A left tackle.  He goes one pick below us in that mock you linked.

 

Wilson strikes me as a lighter Jake Fromm, but with maybe better arm talent.  Or a slightly bigger Anthony Gordon from last year. He seems more like a pick 34 to 50 player than where they have us taking him.

He is nothing like Jake Fromm. His play style resembles Aaron Rodgers.

[Superman 9,409]

5 minutes ago, iuswingman said:

I thought Hurts looked pretty good finishing the season and he's still young.  

 

That's probably the main point of contention. I wasn't remotely impressed with Hurts.

[danlhart87 8,719]

 

 

[TimetobringDfence! 429]

36 minutes ago, Aces101 said:

I posted this in the RIvers retirement thread, but here are my 2 cents:

 

Re-sign Jacoby Brissett for a minimal salary and tell him he will need to compete for the starting QB job while keeping Eason in the fray. This keeps a veteran presence on the team and a guy who could help out a young QB room.

 

Draft:

Draft a WR1 with our pick in Round 1 - the team needs weapons regardless who the QB is

 

Trade up to the end of Round 1 or to the top of Round 2 and draft Trask - accurate pocket passer who can run this type of offense almost immediately or maybe sit 1 year if needed

 

The QB room would be Trask on a rookie deal, Eason in his 2nd year on a rookie deal, and a fairly cheap veteran in Brissett. This will keep the salary for our QBs pretty low, allowing free agency money to be spent elsewhere.

 

Free Agency:

Sign a veteran Left Tackle who can immediately start - keeps the rest of a very good O-Line intact and should protect the QB while continuing to be a force in the running game

 

Sign Mack to a cheap, team-friendly deal to really commit to the ground game to help out a young QB - Taylor, Mack, and Hines will be a great trio of RBs that this team can rely on and win

I like the cheap QB approach if we continue drafting our own to fill holes and build a stronger team. I would like to see us bring back Rhodes and another really good CB like Mike Hilton. If Dak hits the market we need to make an offer.

[danlhart87 8,719]

1 minute ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I like the cheap QB approach if we continue drafting our own to fill holes and build a stronger team. I would like to see us bring back Rhodes and another really good CB like Mike Hilton. If Dak hits the market we need to make an offer.

[Kamran98 4]

I still haven't recovered from Andrew Luck. Ryan grigson has blood on his hands, destroyed a generational talent.

[Aces101 198]

My concern about Prescott is what will he be like athletically post-severe ankle injury. His game centered around his ability to run, athleticism, and a strong arm. If his ankle never fully recovers, his athleticism and running ability will be minimized and his pocket movement may not be the same. If that's the case, would he be much better long term than a guy like Trask who is a more accurate passer....not to mention the huge difference in salary.

[danlhart87 8,719]

Just now, Aces101 said:

My concern about Prescott is what will he be like athletically post-severe ankle injury. His game centered around his ability to run, athleticism, and a strong arm. If his ankle never fully recovers, his athleticism and running ability will be minimized and his pocket movement may not be the same. If that's the case, would he be much better long term than a guy like Trask who is a more accurate passer....not to mention the huge difference in salary.

Prescott will most like want 35+/

 

[danlhart87 8,719]

Every team except the Titans could have a new starting QB in South 

[The Fish 1,184]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I just watched a bunch of him, with coaches film. I'm gonna make a separate post, maybe later today. He had some physical and likely some mental issues in 2020, but there was a lot going on with the Eagles. For him to get back to playing well, he has to make some serious corrections, but I don't see a broken QB. I see a guy who hasn't been coached in a couple years.

 

 

Don't want Hurts. I think it's crazy to want Hurts, while writing off Wentz...

Look forward to seeing what you come up with

[runthepost 799]

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

Strongly disagree..

 

Dude looked like he had cinder blocks on his feet this year, couldn't read a defense (I think that was Reich's job, scheming up stuff so that the reads weren't terribly difficult) and was chucking INT's like it was going out of style.

 

huge gamble on a rehab.. Not into it personally

He carried 8 practice squad starters on offense to the playoffs last year. This year the team made no improvements and he suffered. 

[danlhart87 8,719]

Here's a good question 

 

If Stafford ends up in Indy do you think Golladay follows?

[EastStreet 9,967]

18 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

Here's a good question 

 

If Stafford ends up in Indy do you think Golladay follows?

Detroit only has 3.5M room. Golladay's value is probably in the 15-18M/year range. 

 

Stafford gets 33 and 26 the next two years. So you're looking at 51ish and 44ish the next two years for the package deal. We'd be left 17Mish this year and still need to cover LT, 2xDE, and CB. And we be doing that without whatever draft capital we used to get Stafford. 

[danlhart87 8,719]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

Detroit only has 3.5M room. Golladay's value is probably in the 15-18M/year range. 

 

Stafford gets 33 and 26 the next two years. So you're looking at 51ish and 44ish the next two years for the package deal. We be left 17Mish this year and still need to cover LT, 2xDE, and CB. And we be doing that without whatever draft capital we used to get Stafford. 

Thanks

 

Looking at it that way then no 

[TimetobringDfence! 429]

58 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

What's confusing lol. If Dak doesn't hit the market go cheap this year if dak does go for him. I'm really not about trading for wentz or Stafford. Better off drafting.

[TimetobringDfence! 429]

51 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

Prescott will most like want 35+/

 

Prescott is worth 35 million not much more though.

[TimetobringDfence! 429]

1 hour ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I like the cheap QB approach if we continue drafting our own to fill holes and build a stronger team. I would like to see us bring back Rhodes and another really good CB like Mike Hilton. If Dak hits the market we need to make an offer. Minus the bringing back JB part.

 

[danlhart87 8,719]

3 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

Prescott is worth 35 million not much more though.

He's not gonna get that here 

[TimetobringDfence! 429]

4 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

What's confusing lol. If Dak doesn't hit the market go cheap this year if dak does go for him. I'm really not about trading for wentz or Stafford. Better off drafting.

Wouldnt be upset with Stafford but I feel like he has a one and done playoff ceiling. Would have to have a great team around him.

[danlhart87 8,719]

4 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

What's confusing lol. If Dak doesn't hit the market go cheap this year if dak does go for him. I'm really not about trading for wentz or Stafford. Better off drafting.

you said you wanted a cheap qb then you want dak

 

those are polar opposite 

[Superman 9,409]

12 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Stafford gets 33 and 26 the next two years.

 

If traded, Stafford's cap hits would be $20m and $23m the next two seasons, assuming no new deal is signed.

[TimetobringDfence! 429]

Just now, danlhart87 said:

He's not gonna get that here 

Maybe not, but he would be hard to pass. He stats are top notch in the league he would be a top 5 QB for sure in Indy.

[Restored 270]

I really am starting to believe that the Colts best option is to move up in the draft and get their QB of the future now. The cost could be fairly steep but the window to do it is now.

[TimetobringDfence! 429]

4 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

you said you wanted a cheap qb then you want dak

 

those are polar opposite 

I probably worded it poorly, butI meant either go cheap if you cant get dak. Or pay for Dak if he does hit the market. I dont think other vets outside of watson or prescott are worth the money. Rather have guys on rookie contracts and a strong team.