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

[joecolts 86]

I too believe Stafford is the #1 target for the Colts and it's going to cost the 2 1st rounders or, 1st and 2 2nd rounders.  

[RollerColt 2,507]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not sure the roster is that good. There are parts of the roster that are really good, some depth at others, but we're deficient (IMO) at edge and corner, and probably WR. Improving those areas of the team and adding a "right now" QB might not be attainable in 2021.

We're also extremely deficient with LT now. It's a little scary how many crucial pieces are missing on this team. I like Stafford, but I have a feeling we're going to be outbid. Two first round picks is essentially the opening bid according to NFL.com.

[richard pallo 2,573]

40 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

 

His comment about adding WR and TE fit in nicely with adding Stafford.  He knows he's going to need a few more weapons.  If TY is gone we will need a new WR1 and Stafford will help attract some FA's.  Remember he had Ebron at one time and Burton.   Again he states he thinks we are SB contenders.  That means bring in the veteran QB.  The longer Ballard waits the more expensive this could get.  Two 1st rounders?   Just do it.  Get it done.  

[danlhart87 7,406]

5 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

We're also extremely deficient with LT now. It's a little scary how many crucial pieces are missing on this team. I like Stafford, but I have a feeling we're going to be outbid. Two first round picks is essentially the opening bid according to NFL.com.

If they want 2 1s then Stafford can go elsewhere 

[Chloe6124 9,818]

If we get the right QB and surround him with weapons some of the other holes may not look so big. I can’t name any of the CB on KC. The only DB I know on that team is the honey badger. He is a safety.  Edge rusher is important if that can be found.

[TheNextGM 298]

A 1st and a conditional 2nd.. becomes a 1st if Colts make AFC Championship game.

[Chloe6124 9,818]

Irsay basically said ideally you want a guy that you draft. But then also said that this teams best option is a veteran that can give them 5 years because of where the roster is. I just pray if Stafford goes to SF we don’t go after jimmy G. Lions could get jimmy G in a trade with SF to help a young guy they draft. That would sweeten the pot for SF.

 

There aren’t many teams in position to give up two number ones. Colts and SF are the two teams that are ready to compete now. Not sure some of these other teams would give up that much since they are still rebuilding.

[csmopar 7,196]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Why is drafting an unknown entity considered so much better than trading for a known performer?

 

I've seen a lot of research the last couple of days that confirmed what we already know: it's really hard to find a good QB in the draft, including in the first round. 

i dont disagree. my thinking on trying to draft one, assuming you don't give up the farm like the Redskins did for RG3, is that even if they fail, you're not out all the 20+ million. I guess that's my thought process.  These guys like Stafford, Fitzpatrick, Carr, Wentz are available for trade/sign for a reason. and are really beat up, Wentz the worse of course, than Stafford and so on. I still think people see what Tannehill has done for TN and they think that any QB changing teams will have a similar result. History is hit and miss on that.

[csmopar 7,196]

8 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

If they want 2 1s then Stafford can go elsewhere 

no way in heck am i offering that for Stafford. Not when 3 number ones would get you a younger, better guy in Watson. 

[Chloe6124 9,818]

John Clayton just said on JMV that he is hearing that Stafford does want to come to the colts it just comes down to how the building goes. Believes the NFC teams will have a hard time fitting him in.

 

He believes the colts might have to throw in a third round pick. He believes you could get him for 2 second rounders.

[richard pallo 2,573]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

no way in heck am i offering that for Stafford. Not when 3 number ones would get you a younger, better guy in Watson. 

  It will be much more than that.  

[csmopar 7,196]

Just now, richard pallo said:

  It will be much more than that.  

yeah but he's worth it. and really the only vet QB worth trading for. But it'll never happen, not in the division

[Stephen 1,825]

Even if we get Stafford  need Lt and wrs/ te

[Chloe6124 9,818]

A lot of people think the colts and lions already have a agreement. Going to be interesting the next week or so.

[The Fish 1,141]

The "if's" aren't the hardest thing to get done if Stafford shows up- at least on offense. If nothing changed, the offense with Stafford would be better than it was last year and there's going to be some fresh guys coming in anyway.

 

I'd save my "if's" for the secondary. That whole group sans 3 or 4 guys is in rough shape. 

[PRnum1 289]

I think Stafford at 4 years at 120 M is a little steep.  At least thats the numbers I saw on the other thread.

 

Thinking outside the box for a second, what if we gave a 5th round pick to the Bills for Jake Fromm ?

 

If you're interested in Trask, Fromm is almost the same QB.

 

Precision timing thrower, can throw receivers open, very accurate.

[PeterBowman 1,441]

13 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

A lot of people think the colts and lions already have a agreement. Going to be interesting the next week or so.

Where you seeing this? Anyone reputable?

[Chloe6124 9,818]

 

[chad72 7,134]

7 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

I think Stafford at 4 years at 120 M is a little steep.  At least thats the numbers I saw on the other thread.

 

Thinking outside the box for a second, what if we gave a 5th round pick to the Bills for Jake Fromm ?

 

If you're interested in Trask, Fromm is almost the same QB.

 

Precision timing thrower, can throw receivers open, very accurate.

 

At that rate, I would give up a conditional 2nd for Darnold that we know can extend plays and was stuck in a bad situation. Then, we can move back from our 1st rounder at No.21 to say No.26 and multiply it to a 1st and 3rd if necessary with the Browns who have 2 third rounders back to back (just 1 example). To me, Darnold is Plan B after Stafford that is Plan A.

[Chloe6124 9,818]

1 minute ago, PeterBowman said:

Where you seeing this? Anyone reputable?

Just speculation on the time line of events surrounding rivers quick decision to retire. 

[chad72 7,134]

Just now, Chloe6124 said:

 

 

You are on a roll and you are on it, Chloe!!! 

 

I trust John Clayton, BIG TIME!!!

[richard pallo 2,573]

11 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

A lot of people think the colts and lions already have a agreement. Going to be interesting the next week or so.

That's where I'm leaning.  I know their receiving calls but everyone knows he wants to come here.  I'm starting to think we are negotiating terms and will be giving him a new contract.   Once that's done it will be announced.  Could be any day.  

[chad72 7,134]

Just now, richard pallo said:

That's where I'm leaning.  I know their receiving calls but everyone knows he wants to come here.  I'm starting to think we are negotiating terms and will be giving him a new contract.   Once that's done it will be announced.  Could be any day.  

 

Yeah, we need some fallback for good news in case Brady wins his 7th ring becoming the Lord of the rings!!!  

[Superman 9,190]

38 minutes ago, csmopar said:

i dont disagree. my thinking on trying to draft one, assuming you don't give up the farm like the Redskins did for RG3, is that even if they fail, you're not out all the 20+ million. I guess that's my thought process.  These guys like Stafford, Fitzpatrick, Carr, Wentz are available for trade/sign for a reason. and are really beat up, Wentz the worse of course, than Stafford and so on. I still think people see what Tannehill has done for TN and they think that any QB changing teams will have a similar result. History is hit and miss on that.

 

I don't think Stafford is really beat up. And I think the history on good veteran QBs changing teams is more encouraging than the history of drafting QB prospects. 

 

 

Drafting a QB would be easier on the cap. I don't know if it's the best way for us to get a good QB right now.

 

[PRnum1 289]

48 minutes ago, csmopar said:

i dont disagree. my thinking on trying to draft one, assuming you don't give up the farm like the Redskins did for RG3, is that even if they fail, you're not out all the 20+ million. I guess that's my thought process.  These guys like Stafford, Fitzpatrick, Carr, Wentz are available for trade/sign for a reason. and are really beat up, Wentz the worse of course, than Stafford and so on. I still think people see what Tannehill has done for TN and they think that any QB changing teams will have a similar result. History is hit and miss on that.

 

Great post.  They are real beat up, thats why they are on the block.

 

I would go one further and say avoid Darnold.  He's on his way to become a bust.

 

Always avoid USC quarterbacks.

[chad72 7,134]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think Stafford is really beat up. And I think the history on good veteran QBs changing teams is more encouraging than the history of drafting QB prospects. 

 

Drafting a QB would be easier on the cap. I don't know if it's the best way for us to get a good QB right now.

 

It has happened enough lately. From Peyton to Rivers to Brady, veteran QBs don't hit the market often but when they do, the results have been good lately. 

 

Since Luck came into the league, in the last 9 years, Stafford has missed 8 games (all happened in 1 stretch in 2019), while we know how many games Luck missed. 

[stitches 8,029]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think Stafford is really beat up. And I think the history on good veteran QBs changing teams is more encouraging than the history of drafting QB prospects. 

 

 

Drafting a QB would be easier on the cap. I don't know if it's the best way for us to get a good QB right now.

 

Agree with the 1st part... agree with the second part with the caveat that I think drafting a QB is better for the long-term success of the team than trading for a vet(especially one in his mid-30s). For all we know even if the vet we get plays well, we might be in the same exact position we are in now in a year or two... 

 

So the question is ... having in mind the state of our roster right now and all the important positions that need addressing... should we be aiming at a short-term, win-now solution? IMO going win-now with a QB like Stafford, only makes sense if you are going to go all in across the board and try to address heavily all of the positions we are severely lacking at... which I don't know is realistic. 

[craigerb 31]

1 hour ago, joecolts said:

Stafford is going to cost the 2 1st rounders or, 1st and 2 2nd rounders.  

Not worth it.  Better to play Eason.

[rockywoj 992]

Yeah, hearing / reading a lot of sources speculating at least two # 1s to get Stafford.  That strikes me as a pretty steep price.  A 1st & 3rd sounds more palatable to me.   Although, if Stafford comes in and balls out for 5-7 years, then two 1s might not seem like too much from a future retrospective standpoint, especially if they’re # 21 and # 32. ;)

[craigerb 31]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

3 number ones would get you a younger, better guy in Watson. 

That would be the worst deal.  DW = too many TOs.

[danlhart87 7,406]

1 hour ago, TheNextGM said:

A 1st and a conditional 2nd.. becomes a 1st if Colts make AFC Championship game.

Way too much

[Orioles22 284]

6 minutes ago, craigerb said:

Not worth it.  Better to play Eason.

I don't see that as an option for the Colts. They will sign someone. Eason may be the backup this year, which is a step up for him.

[danlhart87 7,406]

8 minutes ago, craigerb said:

Not worth it.  Better to play Eason.

just draft qb

[GoColts8818 4,565]

1 minute ago, danlhart87 said:

just draft qb

There has to be one to draft first.  Ballard has already said he doesn’t expect one to be there at 21.

10 minutes ago, craigerb said:

Not worth it.  Better to play Eason.

Well Ballard has already seemingly ruled that out as an option.  

[Chloe6124 9,818]

We are going to have to pay to get this situation fixed. Whether it’s a veteran or trading way up. We are never going to be bad enough to get a top guy. That is just the way it is. We are going to have to pay to get him or pay in the draft. Otherwise we are stuck in mediocrity. At some point Ballard has to pull the trigger.

[shasta519 2,826]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Why is drafting an unknown entity considered so much better than trading for a known performer?

 

I've seen a lot of research the last couple of days that confirmed what we already know: it's really hard to find a good QB in the draft, including in the first round. 

 

It's not better for next season...but my response would be that "better" is really subjective. It really depends on how you value risk or reward...and how you value long-term or short-term. Plus...there's more to context to it...than just acquiring a known performer and an unknown entity.

 

Stafford is a proven QB...and I would be excited if they got him. But he's also 33...which could be near the end of his prime. And he's not a FA...he still requires serious draft capital.

 

So for the price of a proven talent...you pay a big contract AND give up draft capital. It would be less draft capital than trading up...but it would be significantly more money. And that makes it that much more difficult to supplement the roster. And while it is less risky...the upside is capped. Stafford isn't going to turn into a Josh Allen type player...like a draft pick might.

 

Looking at the group of recent SB contenders (which is of course small)...only three teams went to the SB (in the past 10 years) with a QB they didn't draft...DEN, SF and TB (Foles was an outlier...but he was actually drafted by PHI).

 

So that was PFM...with an elite defense...and Jimmy G (who was 26 when they traded for him) with an elite defense...and Tom Brady. Two of those QBs are top 5 all-time...and two of those teams had better defenses than we can realistically hope to have in Indy.

 

Trading up is a huge risk...but it has the highest reward...if winning the SB is the goal. 

[w87r 5,020]

3 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

So that was PFM...with an elite defense...and Jimmy G (who was 26 when they traded for him) with an elite defense...and Tom Brady. Two of those QBs are top 5 all-time...and two of those teams had better defenses than we can realistically hope to have in Indy.

Highly sleeping on TBs defense.

 

#6 in yds per game

#2 in rush yds per game

#10 in pass yds per game

#7 in pts per game.

#3 in QBR against

#1 in sacks

[danlhart87 7,406]

The rewards of trading up for a QB far outweigh the risk IMO. If CB sees a guy in draft he likes he shouldn't hesitate to trade up.

[krunk 4,171]

Come on the forum and it seems almost like a wrap we will get Stafford. But then you get on youtube and they position reports as if its the 49ers who will or maybe Denver. Just have to wait and see.

[shasta519 2,826]

5 minutes ago, w87r said:

Highly sleeping on TBs defense.

 

#6 in yds per game

#2 in rush yds per game

#10 in pass yds per game

#7 in pts per game.

#3 in QBR against

#1 in sacks

Not intentionally. They were very good this year...just not ‘14-15 DEN or ‘19 SF good. I think the Colts being that good on defense is a realistic expectation.