Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

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


Recommended Posts

I highly doubt the Packers would take anything but a 1st for Love after giving a 1st for him. 

Him being 3rd on the depth chart this season does not mean he will be 3rd next season. 

Just maybe Tim Boyle may be on the market? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I love how good people are at reaching conclusions, based on absolutely no information at all.    First, we were definitely getting Stafford. Now, we're definitely not. (And we will definite

Stafford was always my #1 choice among veteran options. (He was my preferred choice last offseason, someone posted a poll and I picked him.)   I'M ALL IN ON STAFFORD YALL.

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

They could compete but giving up that 21st pick or a second rounder would be a steep price to pay for competition. I think they would only do it with the expectation Love was the future starter.  You are right about Ballard’s grade. If he had a second round grade then giving up a second round pick seams reasonable. 21st might be a little high but because we pick so late they might want that one instead of the 42nd.

 

Lets pretend this happened. Ballard will look like a damn genius. Not that he planned it but he got two second rounders last draft and ends up with the guy he wanted all along. All while having rivers lead the team to a 11-5 record and the playoffs. Not sure this will happen but you can’t rule out anything.

Sure the expectation would be that Love would start, but you do want to motivate Eason.

 

I don't think GB takes the trade for the Colts second, they have to show they didn't just waste a spot in the roster and a pick for a year. GB, rightfully  took a lot of heat for picking Love while having a HOF qb in his prime.

 

One thing I thought about going into the divisional playoff games, and I'm sure many noticed it also: the 4 starting qb's in the AFC were all 25 years old or younger. With Lawrence coming into the conference, and likely either Zach Wilson or Justin Fields, coupled with Tua in Miami and Herbert in LA  and the Colts are in the midst of a young arms race. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ColtV said:

 

 

I don't think GB takes the trade for the Colts second, they have to show they didn't just waste a spot in the roster and a pick for a year. GB, rightfully  took a lot of heat for picking Love while having a HOF qb in his prime.

 

There were rumors of Rogers leaving Green Bay before Love was drafted. 

Yes the Packers took heat for drafting Love but it put a fire under Rogers. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ColtV said:

Sure the expectation would be that Love would start, but you do want to motivate Eason.

 

I don't think GB takes the trade for the Colts second, they have to show they didn't just waste a spot in the roster and a pick for a year. GB, rightfully  took a lot of heat for picking Love while having a HOF qb in his prime.

 

One thing I thought about going into the divisional playoff games, and I'm sure many noticed it also: the 4 starting qb's in the AFC were all 25 years old or younger. With Lawrence coming into the conference, and likely either Zach Wilson or Justin Fields, coupled with Tua in Miami and Herbert in LA  and the Colts are in the midst of a young arms race. 

They might take a second if the colts had a very high second round pick. But yeah I think they would want the first. If Ballard would of took him with one of the second round picks then trade the 21st. It’s not that much difference than where you would of took him last season. Because they have Rodgers this could be a trade that happens before the draft too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

They might take a second if the colts had a very high second round pick. But yeah I think they would want the first. If Ballard would of took him with one of the second round picks then trade the 21st. It’s not that much difference than where you would of took him last season. Because they have Rodgers this could be a trade that happens before the draft too. 

We also have to keep in mind that Rogers sat behind Favre for three seasons so they may just hold him on his rookie contract. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

I didn't get the Love love last draft....

 

....and strangely, it continues.....

Just putting it out there. Can’t rule anything out. For Ballard it’s a easy evaluation to just go back to your scouting reports from the draft last season. Do I think it happens probably not. But it is a option to look at. If love would of been picked in the second round I am sure it’s on Ballard’s radar also as a option.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If we don't trade for a QB, Lance looks like he could be special. He looked much better in college than Eason did.

Lance also wasn't playing vs SEC and Pac-12 defenses like Eason was. Lance well could be special, but likely not in 2021 and maybe not in 2022 either--which IMO is where the Colts' most likely Super Bowl window is, especially w/ their OLs and Leonard, Taylor and Pittman signed to their current contracts.

 

I think Ballard & Reich have to decide if they do feel their window is now, with the current OL and defense (with or without Eberflus), in which case I think they really have to try for another veteran QB. If they don't feel that way, fine, then start a post-Luck modified rebuild either w/ Eason, Lance, or some other new guy, while trying to hold on to Nelson, Leonard, etc as long as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright so I’ve narrowed it down to 3 options for me. One may surprise you

 

1. Draft a QB

2. Eason

3. Trubisky

 

If we’re talking about low risk low cost QB options that I’m betting on Reich being able to “fix”, Id be willing to bet on Mitch over any other FA/tradeable QB. Unlike Darnold he hasn’t been mostly bad where you’re really betting on projection. His career numbers are actually solid all things considered. He’s also only 26. The big seller for me was the athleticism. He runs a 4.67 and when Chicago was somewhat good, they had Mitch running the ball. He’s a FA and it wouldn’t cost much to get him.

 

Draft wise I like him way better than Jones or Trask. Even Newman who I think is a sleeper. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Alright so I’ve narrowed it down to 3 options for me. One may surprise you

 

1. Draft a QB

2. Eason

3. Trubisky

 

If we’re talking about low risk low cost QB options that I’m betting on Reich being able to “fix”, Id be willing to bet on Mitch over any other FA/tradeable QB. Unlike Darnold he hasn’t been mostly bad where you’re really betting on projection. His career numbers are actually solid all things considered. He’s also only 26. The big seller for me was the athleticism. He runs a 4.67 and when Chicago was somewhat good, they had Mitch running the ball. He’s a FA and it wouldn’t cost much to get him.

 

Draft wise I like him way better than Jones or Trask. Even Newman who I think is a sleeper. 

The only advantage of Trubisky is the cost. He deserves a cheap contract cause he's not very good. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Alright so I’ve narrowed it down to 3 options for me. One may surprise you

 

1. Draft a QB

2. Eason

3. Trubisky

 

If we’re talking about low risk low cost QB options that I’m betting on Reich being able to “fix”, Id be willing to bet on Mitch over any other FA/tradeable QB. Unlike Darnold he hasn’t been mostly bad where you’re really betting on projection. His career numbers are actually solid all things considered. He’s also only 26. The big seller for me was the athleticism. He runs a 4.67 and when Chicago was somewhat good, they had Mitch running the ball. He’s a FA and it wouldn’t cost much to get him.

 

Draft wise I like him way better than Jones or Trask. Even Newman who I think is a sleeper. 

If we go after Trubisky I will do this pool fail GIF

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

The only advantage of Trubisky is the cost. He deserves a cheap contract cause he's not very good. 

Yup. Stafford might not be available but if he is, you’d have to give up draft picks and pay him money. Ryan would cost draft picks and money right off the bat too. Getting Lance is going to require two 1st round picks assuming he doesn’t drop. Trubisky will cost very little in terms of money and won’t cost any draft picks since he’s a FA.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching highlights of Stafford to try and get a sense of if he would fit Reichs offense. I know it’s hard to get much from highlights but I really get a sense he would fit well. Looks like a good quick Rythem passer. Much more mobile then I expected. Better deep ball then Rivers. Basically just a younger Rivers with little better mobility and deep ball. The question is how smart he is. Can he run Reichs offense at the line of scrimmage as far as presnap reads. Add Taylor with Stafford and play action would be deadly.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I was watching highlights of Stafford to try and get a sense of if he would fit Reichs offense. I know it’s hard to get much from highlights but I really get a sense he would fit well. Looks like a good quick Rythem passer. Much more mobile then I expected. Better deep ball then Rivers. Basically just a younger Rivers with little better mobility and deep ball. The question is how smart he is. Can he run Reichs offense at the line of scrimmage as far as presnap reads. Add Taylor with Stafford and play action would be deadly.

 

 

 

Without getting over the top, yes, it would work and it'd probably work pretty well.. like SB contender well.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Four2itus said:

I didn't get the Love love last draft....

 

....and strangely, it continues.....

I know right? Word outa GB is that Love has not fared well to this point in any facet and doesn't look all that but yet some want the Colts to trade for him... Ha!! :scratch:

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Indeee said:

I know right? Word outa GB is that Love has not fared well to this point in any facet and doesn't look all that but yet some want the Colts to trade for him... Ha!! :scratch:

Word from who?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Word from who?

In regards to Love? The GB media, Rotoworld, and PFT. Love has not progressed anywhere near what would've been expected from a round 1 selection QB, albeit late round one. This info was relayed like halfway through the season prompting most to assume it was going to be years until he got to a point to succeed Rodgers if at all. Love is and has always been a project. As a matter of fact, rotoworld made a point of stating something to the effect that Love was terrible and highly over rated when the blurb was posted of the inactive players recently in the GB divisional rounds. Hell just two weeks ago on moving the chains Pat Kirwan brought up that Love has not been what was expected and might have been a bunk pick when him and Miller were discussing and or reflecting that Rodgers didn't have wide out help and how GB was in position now without that added help etc. Seriously, common knowledge that so far Love sucks

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Indeee said:

In regards to Love? The GB media, Rotoworld, and PFT. Love has not progressed anywhere near what would've been expected from a round 1 selection QB, albeit late round one. This info was relayed like halfway through the season prompting most to assume it was going to be years until he got to a point to succeed Rodgers if at all. Love is and has always been a project. As a matter of fact, rotoworld made a point of stating something to the effect that Love was terrible and highly over rated when the blurb was posted of the inactive players recently in the GB divisional rounds. Hell just two weeks ago on moving the chains Pat Kirwan brought up that Love has not been what was expected and might have been a bunk pick when him and Miller were discussing and or reflecting that Rodgers didn't have wide out help and how GB was in position now without that added help etc. Seriously, common knowledge that so far Love sucks

I can't find anything saying he "sucks". Perhaps you can provide a link. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Indeee said:

I know right? Word outa GB is that Love has not fared well to this point in any facet and doesn't look all that but yet some want the Colts to trade for him... Ha!! :scratch:

Well when there was basically no offseason it’s a little harsh to say that about him. Him and Eason are kind of in the same spot. Ballard would have to decide who has the most upside. If Love would of been taken by the colts in the second that tells you they probably think more of Love. Or at least did at draft time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I can't find anything saying he "sucks". Perhaps you can provide a link. 

Ok first off no professional commentator or evaluator is going to say anyone sucks. I said he sucks as I can read between the lines. The most recent assessment from roto was that he never played against top talent at Utah or something to that affect. Keep searching and you will find blurbs from quote in quotes pro's whom have not given this QB rave reviews as of yet. Now if you want to keep vying to hold Love's jock so be it, I'm telling you he was a wasted first round pick as of now

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Well when there was basically no offseason it’s a little harsh to say that about him. Him and Eason are kind of in the same spot. Ballard would have to decide who has the most upside. If Love would of been taken by the colts in the second that tells you they probably think more of Love. Or at least did at draft time.

It's based on him being a FIRST ROUND pick. Just like Haskins. A first round pick evaluation fair or not.  Whether he pans out or not who knows, but as of now he has not shown well based on his draft selection placement

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Indeee said:

It's based on him being a FIRST ROUND pick. Just like Haskins. A first round pick evaluation fair or not.  Whether he pans out or not who knows, but as of now he has not shown well based on his draft selection placement

He hasn't played yet.    Also,   Google search turned up nothing about him being bad in practice in green Bay.   I think your blind dislike for him has altered your reality

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

Well when there was basically no offseason it’s a little harsh to say that about him. Him and Eason are kind of in the same spot. Ballard would have to decide who has the most upside. If Love would of been taken by the colts in the second that tells you they probably think more of Love. Or at least did at draft time.

We had holes to fill, and we'll never what the prioritization was. Doesn't mean they didn't like Love, just means they either needed other things at his draft point, or liked others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate here. Did  Ballard actually set us back by signing rivers. Would it have been smarter in the long run to stick with Jacoby and be in a better spot to draft a QB.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

We had holes to fill, and we'll never what the prioritization was. Doesn't mean they didn't like Love, just means they either needed other things at his draft point, or liked others. 

That’s exactly what I said or meant.  What we don’t know is where Ballard had Love graded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dogg63 said:

Here's one.

And another

I don't have a dog in this, just did a quick google search to see what's out there.

No dog for me either, but I simply read into those articles that he's simply thinking too much, which is not uncommon. And given he's a dual threat guy, he's likely playing "artificially". What I mean by that is that he's being told to stay in the pocket and make the pass. I think he was hurt by not having a pre season where he could have got some "real" action. IMO he's a flow QB. I really don't like the Packers scheme for him either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Alright so I’ve narrowed it down to 3 options for me. One may surprise you

 

1. Draft a QB

2. Eason

3. Trubisky

 

If we’re talking about low risk low cost QB options that I’m betting on Reich being able to “fix”, Id be willing to bet on Mitch over any other FA/tradeable QB. Unlike Darnold he hasn’t been mostly bad where you’re really betting on projection. His career numbers are actually solid all things considered. He’s also only 26. The big seller for me was the athleticism. He runs a 4.67 and when Chicago was somewhat good, they had Mitch running the ball. He’s a FA and it wouldn’t cost much to get him.

 

Draft wise I like him way better than Jones or Trask. Even Newman who I think is a sleeper. 

Add Mariota in there too. Got to look at all the names. Read an article that he may make too much, $10.6 mill, for the raiders to keep him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dogg63 said:

Here's one.

And another

I don't have a dog in this, just did a quick google search to see what's out there.

Thanks for that. I know there is more, not a lot more but there have been blurbs through the season and comments/talk on sirius nfl 88 as well. There was one recently on roto but for the life of me I couldn't find it. I'm not sure if it was removed by roto or not. Don't know why they would but... anyway thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

He hasn't played yet.    Also,   Google search turned up nothing about him being bad in practice in green Bay.   I think your blind dislike for him has altered your reality

Or your bling "Love" of him has altered yours... :thinking:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Indeee said:

In regards to Love? The GB media, Rotoworld, and PFT. Love has not progressed anywhere near what would've been expected from a round 1 selection QB, albeit late round one. This info was relayed like halfway through the season prompting most to assume it was going to be years until he got to a point to succeed Rodgers if at all. Love is and has always been a project. As a matter of fact, rotoworld made a point of stating something to the effect that Love was terrible and highly over rated when the blurb was posted of the inactive players recently in the GB divisional rounds. Hell just two weeks ago on moving the chains Pat Kirwan brought up that Love has not been what was expected and might have been a bunk pick when him and Miller were discussing and or reflecting that Rodgers didn't have wide out help and how GB was in position now without that added help etc. Seriously, common knowledge that so far Love sucks

 

It's common knowledge that so far Love has sucked? I know you can't link a podcast...but do you have any other links that talk about Love sucking? The last time I heard anything to that effect was during TC.

 

All I have found since that time (regarding Love's development) was an article from October...where Rodgers said Love was doing well...learning and opening up. And then another from a month ago that GB was pleased with his progress. 

 

The narrative about adding GB hurting because they drafted Love should be dead...as they get ready to enter the NFCCG. And with Rodgers playing at an MVP level...it's impossible to know how Love will turn out because we won't see him in a Packer uniform for a couple of years at least.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Indeee said:

Or your bling "Love" of him has altered yours... :thinking:

I've never seen him play.     I just know Ballard liked him coming out.    So it's pretty obvious he doesn't "suck "

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dogg63 said:

Here's one.

And another

I don't have a dog in this, just did a quick google search to see what's out there.

 

Those are both from TC though. The NYP article is just parroting Schneidman's comments from camp. It would surprise me in the least if you had local Packers media that didn't like the pick and were loyal to Rodgers.

 

Since then, I haven't seen anything negative about Love.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Playing devils advocate here. Did  Ballard actually set us back by signing rivers. Would it have been smarter in the long run to stick with Jacoby and be in a better spot to draft a QB.  

No.

 

The stench of losing is hard to get rid of. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Fish said:

No.

 

The stench of losing is hard to get rid of. 

I do agree that having a winning culture is probably much more important. I actually think the bigger mistake might of been last season. We live buck and has been worth every penny but we had ammo last season to try and move up. Now it’s also possible Ballard tried to and just couldn’t get a deal done before trading for Buck. But the fact that deal was worked on clear back at the SB I don’t think he tried to move up and get Herbert. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I've never seen him play.     I just know Ballard liked him coming out.    So it's pretty obvious he doesn't "suck "

If he's that highly thought of, why would you think the Packers would trade him? AR is getting up there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Playing devils advocate here. Did  Ballard actually set us back by signing rivers. Would it have been smarter in the long run to stick with Jacoby and be in a better spot to draft a QB.  

We can all look at everything in hindsight but in reality Rivers gave us a chance to win a SB. He is underrated in here by many who say we had no chance with him. That is just baffling considering we went 11-5 and played Buffalo even who is in the AFC Title Game. Rivers also won at KC in 2018 taking down Mahomes. I am about a winning culture, not tanking. I would just go all in and grab Stafford who is only 33 and would be at least as good as a 39 year Rivers IMO. I have already seen posts where some are saying we can't win a SB with Stafford either, I will say this, we definitely aren't with Eason, JB, or a rookie QB so what is the alternative? I think we can win a SB with Stafford as he is proven that he is good. He hasn't won because of the organization he has played for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't know who else we really need to have a bounce back year, especially on D.  Along our DL, we either need to bring back Houston and Autry or figure out how to replace them - but both had pretty solid years.  Lewis was better than he had been his first couple years.  Buckner was a stud and Stewart was solid.  Having Turay come back healthy and seeing Banogu improve would be helpful, but they both played so little last year and hadn't done enough previously to indicate last year was a 'down year'.  At LB, Leonard was a first-team all pro again and very solid.  Walker was solid but saw his snap count decrease and Oke had his ups and downs while seeing his snap count dramatically increase (as @EastStreet pointed out,  not only did his snaps go way up compared to his rookie year but the way he was used was different).  I doubt we see Walker back, so it'd be nice to see Oke improve for sure.  Then in the secondary we had solid play from Rhodes, Carrie, Willis and Moore for the most part.  Blackmon was solid (especially early on, but he seemed to digress as the year went on - IMO, to be expected as he was raw coming in and was coming off a knee injury, I don't think he was supposed to get near the snaps he did last year, but we know what happened with Hooker and sort of forced Blackmon into the fire).  RYS had a down year, but I don't see why he can't bounce back - he's got the physical traits - I tend to think he battled some mental demons after some P-Int penalties, and hopefully he can refine his technique some and come back strong.     In all, on the D, I think we're in good shape.  Keep in mind, it seemed like 'Flus called the D a bit differently last year than he had in earlier years here.  We are, overall (aside from Houston, Autry, Rhodes) very young on D.  We had a very weird off-season last year, which (IMO) is critical for younger guys.  I can't help but think it didn't help the likes of guys like RYS and Oke who saw their roles increase and change (IMO, OKe's change was more than a 'slight' change) between their rookie year and year 2.     On O, ideally we'll see solid QB play from Wentz (I won't go as far as to saying he needs a 'bounce back' year as he hasn't been in Indy before and it sounds like there was a lot of toxicity in Philly, hopefully all he needs in a change of scenery and a reunion with Reich).  Our OL was solid, so as long as we can replace AC at LT I think we'll be OK there.  We had pretty consistent play from Hines and Wilkins throughout the year and JT got dramatically better as the season wore on -- I think if those guys can start up where they left off, we're more than fine at RB.  TY didn't have his best year, but he's be declining for about 3 years now, so if we bring him back, all we can do is hope he stays healthy and I think we'll be in OK shape.  Pittman missed some time with his leg compartment syndrome, but was solid down the stretch, so I don't think we need him to 'bounce back', just continue on his trajectory and he's gonna be solid.  Pascal was solid and I think we've pretty much seen his ceiling, so he just needs to stay solid.  It would be sweet to see Campbell and/or Patmon to emerge, but don't think we need them to 'bounce back' as we've never gotten high level results from them to begin with.     Then on STs, we were pretty solid all around.  Would like to see Blankenship add a bit more umphf to his kicks, but he was solid and Sanchez was solid punting.  The coverage and return units were solid overall.   So really, I think we need a comeback or bounce back year from RYS and maybe Oke... but overall, I don't think we need a 'bunch of them.'       I agree, pretty much  have to temper expectations on Speed being from a small school.  He did really improve on STs last year and he got his praise any time Ballard or any coaches spoke about him.  I get the feeling Ballard and staff are willing to use patience with project players (Ballard states that fairly regularly).  With Oke, Walker, Leonard and then Franklin who has more playing experience at LB - I don't think there was really much need to rush Speed into an LB role last year.  He got plenty of ST snaps and did well there, hopefully boosting his confidence that he can play at NFL level while still refining his LB technique in practices and the film room.     While I would rather see guys like Adams and Glasgow on STs - I don't think it is terrible to have them on the roster primarily as STers but being our 5th and 6th ranked LBs on the depth chart as well.  Meaning, if we went into the season with Leonard, Oke, Speed and Franklin as our top 4 with Adams and Glasgow as STers but listed as 5 and 6 on depth chart, I don't think it'd be the worst thing (especially considering we predominantly play with only 2 LBers on the field).  So, sure it'd be nice to bring in a mid-late round draft pick or sign a decent FA for fairly cheap, but I'd rather see us dishing out money to bring in a solid LT, a playmaker at TE (and maybe WR), retain Rhodes, ensure the DL was solid (either by bringing back Houston and Autry or by getting a guy like Bud Dupree/JJ Watt/etc.), and add OL depth.  In otherwords, regardless of if we bring Walker back or not, I don't think LB is a top 5 position of concern right now.   I don't think Walker is going to command a ton, but he was 15th in the NFL in tackles in 2018 (124), tied for 28th (105) in 2019 and in the top 50 in 2020 (92).  He's a pretty productive player and a solid one - so he's going to demand significantly more than he was getting as a 5th round pick on his rookie contract.  And yes, he definitely wants to play more and I think his biggest issue here is his lack of athleticism.  You're right, he'll probably play more in a 3-4 D and he will likely be offered more money by a team where he'll play a lot than what Ballard will offer him.    See the last line from Ballard in this article:  https://www.colts.com/news/chris-ballard-philip-rivers-ty-hilton-xavier-rhodes-2020-season-press-conference (Ballard on Linebacker Anthony Walker: "I have a special relationship with Anthony Walker. Selfless. Team guy. Rare leader. I hope he gets into coaching one day or scouting. Mark my words on this: if Anthony Walker gets into coaching, he will be a head football coach in the National Football League. And if he gets into scouting, he'll be a general manager. He's brilliant — absolutely brilliant, and he's made of the right stuff. I know Anthony wants to play more. We value Anthony. We'll see how it works out. I want good for Anthony."   My guess is Walker is gone.  
    • It's basically just monitoring one thread (general thread), then updating the big board and pick thread with every pick. So 32ish real time updates per night. Not hard, just tedious.
    • Let me know when you need me to assist. 
  • Members

    • midmoColtsfan

      midmoColtsfan 0

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • cdgacoltsfan

      cdgacoltsfan 572

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jal8908

      jal8908 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JoeThornburg

      JoeThornburg 27

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CR91

      CR91 6,366

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 8,292

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Zoltan

      Zoltan 541

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • StlColt

      StlColt 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • will426

      will426 146

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Colt.45

      Colt.45 345

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...