Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!! :) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :thinking:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

    • For what little it's worth,  I don't know the website where you found the measurements,  but I think Munoz arrived at USC in the mid-70's around 280.    I think he played his entire career at 300 plus...      Same with Reggie White...   I think he played his Green Bay years around 300....
    • I want a LT too.    But I'm not sure we will get one tht is ready to go on Day 1.    Do you want Carson Wentz to have to perform with a below average rookie LT?      I don't think so.     I still expect to draft one.    But that guy may need some time, like a year or so.  
    • This happened in the last 24 hours or so...   Draftek, using projections from OverTheCap.com has predicted the compensatory picks in R's 3-7.   I'm not sure if this includes bonus picks awarded for teams who lost Coaches of Color to other franchises.   Was that supposed to kick in this year or next?    I don't see that reflected yet.   So, that may be still in the pipeline.   Either way.....   take a look.    There is also a simple click to look at what is being called a newer or more frequently used model known as the Rich Hill model.   It appears to be endorsed by Bill Belichick.      It is, what it is.....    same idea and concept,  just somewhat different point valuations.    Worth taking a look.    Enjoy!   https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=ind
    • Yep, just like in an all-time draft for example. Lets say you have 6 people participating in that exercise. All 6 will take a QB in round 1 as in perhaps: 1st pick. Tom Brady (Team 1) 2nd pick. Joe Montana (Team 2) 3rd pick. Peyton Manning (Team 3) 4th pick. Johnny Unitas (Team 4) 5th pick. John Elway (Team 5) 6th pick. Aaron Rodgers (Team 6) -every team is set at QB at that point, in a snake draft, Team 6 picks 1st in round 2 to keep it fair and at that point who knows what Team 6 will do based on value of pick??   Maybe for round 2: 7th pick. (Team 6) Jerry Rice WR or do you take a LT like Anthony Munoz or a Pass Rusher like Lawrence Taylor or Reggie White? Lets say Team 6 goes with Rice, then   8th pick. (Team 5) perhaps take Anthony Munoz LT here at 6'6 280 pounds with long arms you would have a guy that can protect your QB for a decade. Then again some may want to go Randy Moss WR or Marvin Harrison WR here or a Pass Rusher??   9th pick. (Team 4) I would say Lawrence Taylor OLB 6'3 240 pounds here based on value or Reggie White DE 6'5 290 pounds, right?  
  • Members

    • Nadine

      Nadine 6,416

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mel Kiper's Hair

      Mel Kiper's Hair 2,151

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Behle

      Behle 49

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ScotColt

      ScotColt 183

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Rally5

      Rally5 508

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • w87r

      w87r 5,016

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Iloabuchi96

      Iloabuchi96 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Colt.45

      Colt.45 345

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solid84

      Solid84 9

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shadow_Creek

      Shadow_Creek 695

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