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

[poilucelt]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

Most of Goff’s contract is guaranteed.   $110 of $134 million is guaranteed.   So Goff is not tearing that deal up.   It’s money in the bank.

 

The two sides are having a public spat.  But they’ll get past this.  The Rams are now saying there will be competition in camp next season.   Good luck with that.

 

To be clear, I’m NOT a Goff fan.  Never have been.  But he’s got the leverage.  And he’s not giving that up. 

is there a no-trade clause in his contract? I don't remember

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, poilucelt said:

if CB misses out on Stafford, I'm not sure how picky the Colts can realistically be going forward

 

I'm starting to have strange, disturbing visions of Nick Foles in a Colts uniform.........

Please no, not Foles 

[Wage]

Please save us from ourselves San Fran. I can't believe anyone would trade a first round pick for Matthew freaking Stafford but here we are talking about adding in more picks? Or one of the best linebackers in the game? I know the local media is eating this stuff up and no one actually watches the Lions play, but if you did you would see Stafford isn't the answer to any question worth asking.

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, poilucelt said:

is there a no-trade clause in his contract? I don't remember

Not that I’m aware of.   I’ve never heard or read that anywhere.   But I think if he was traded, it would be a dead cap hit of roughly $65 million.   So, that’s not happening. 

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Most of Goff’s contract is guaranteed.   $110 of $134 million is guaranteed.   So Goff is not tearing that deal up.   It’s money in the bank.

 

The two sides are having a public spat.  But they’ll get past this.  The Rams are now saying there will be competition in camp next season.   Good luck with that.

 

To be clear, I’m NOT a Goff fan.  Never have been.  But he’s got the leverage.  And he’s not giving that up. 

Rams have very very limited options. Minus 30M cap, no first round pick, a ton of dead cap for Goff. Just ugly. 

Their roster is so top heavy with Goff, Donald, and Ramsey's contracts.

[waterdog]

6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

IMO, he's over rated, and got a contract way above his ceiling. I called it when it happened, and now looks to be coming to fruition. QB contracts of today remind me of the old RB contracts that were crazy high. Teams learned finally that backing up the truck for a RB wasn't smart. Now teams are getting burnt on QB contracts.

 

I think it's one big reason Jerry and Dak have been dancing so long. Personally, if I were Jerry, I'd go for Stafford, Wilson, or Lance, and be done with the Dak days. Right now, only one QB is worth 40M/year, and that's Mahomes. When you let one position (1 of 22, which is 4.5% of your starters and 1.8% of your roster) become 20+% of your salary cap, he better be extremely special because that kind of money creates holes in many other places.

Maybe even Mahomes will take a pay cut to keep teammates. All those insurance commercials must be helping to fund his ketchup habit.

I agree with your financial thoughts, and I recall the Seahawks built a solid team with a beast mode RB, and then got 'lucky' with a 3rd round QB, but have looked vulnerable since having to pay Russ.

[poilucelt]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

Rams have very very limited options. Minus 30M cap, no first round pick, a ton of dead cap for Goff. Just ugly. 

Their roster is so top heavy with Goff, Donald, and Ramsey's contracts.

they may have to make Goff part owner of the team.....or at least the new stadium

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Not that I’m aware of.   I’ve never heard or read that anywhere.   But I think if he was traded, it would be a dead cap hit of roughly $65 million.   So, that’s not happening. 

There are 4 scenarios to his dead cap charge. 

Click the red x on the 2021 line, and it gives you the details. 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/jared-goff-18949/

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, poilucelt said:

they may have to make Goff part owner of the team.....or at least the new stadium

Regarding Goff, I am not sure if he does have a no trade clause. I know Watson does and Stafford doesn't.

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, waterdog said:

Maybe even Mahomes will take a pay cut to keep teammates. All those insurance commercials must be helping to fund his ketchup habit.

 

I agree with your financial thoughts, and I recall the Seahawks built a solid team with a beast mode RB, and then got 'lucky' with a 3rd round QB, but have looked vulnerable since having to pay Russ.

Brady was great about being unselfish, and he was rewarded with a lot of SBs. Most QBs today just care about the their bank accounts. 

 

And yes, if the timing isn't perfect, a big QB contract can wreck you. Seattle has pretty much zero cap to work with.

[stitches]

BTW why are we acting like Stafford is surefire 5+ years starter for us and in the case he is, why do we assume he will keep playing at high level rather than have a breakdown similar to pretty much every other QB not named Tom Brady in his mid-late 30s? 

[NewColtsFan]

19 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

There are 4 scenarios to his dead cap charge. 

Click the red x on the 2021 line, and it gives you the details. 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/jared-goff-18949/

Thanks.  That’s really good stuff.  
 

I don’t recall seeing that feature before?   Is that new for 2021?   Or was it there last year and I just missed it?   

[EastStreet]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

Thanks.  That’s really good stuff.  
 

I don’t recall seeing that feature before?   Is that new for 2021?   Or was it there last year and I just missed it?   

YW. Not sure to be honest. I know there was something like it, just not sure if it was to that detail, or perhaps it's been there, and Goff's contract just creates more scenarios so it looks different.

[NewColtsFan]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

BTW why are we acting like Stafford is surefire 5+ years starter for us and in the case he is, why do we assume he will keep playing at high level rather than have a breakdown similar to pretty much every other QB not named Tom Brady in his mid-late 30s? 

Well...  Stafford just turned 33.   His next 5 years would be his age 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 seasons.    I don’t think that seems unreasonable.   Besides Brady, isn't Brees 40?   Isn't Roethlisberger getting up there?   Isnt Rodgers up there?   Isn't Matt Ryan trending there?
 

Someone else here posted that Stafford has missed 8 career games.   They all came in the same season.  Otherwise he hasn’t missed a game.    I’ve read some posters here calling Stafford beat up.  I think that’s a poor description. 
 

[EastStreet]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

BTW why are we acting like Stafford is surefire 5+ years starter for us and in the case he is, why do we assume he will keep playing at high level rather than have a breakdown similar to pretty much every other QB not named Tom Brady in his mid-late 30s? 

He's 11 years younger than Brady. 5 years isn't really a huge stretch IMO. In the last 10 years, he's only missed games in one of those seasons. That was 2019 when he had the spinal fracture or something like that. He's been very reliable overall. 

[danlhart87]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasmcgee/2021/01/26/colts-steelers--saints-likely-to-have-close-eye-on-mac-jones-at-senior-bowl/

 

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasmcgee/2021/01/26/colts-steelers--saints-likely-to-have-close-eye-on-mac-jones-at-senior-bowl/

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

22 minutes ago, stitches said:

BTW why are we acting like Stafford is surefire 5+ years starter for us and in the case he is, why do we assume he will keep playing at high level rather than have a breakdown similar to pretty much every other QB not named Tom Brady in his mid-late 30s? 

Nobody really knows but there have been lots of QB's play well into their late 30's other than Brady. Peyton, Brees, Rivers, are just 3 examples. Stafford is relatively healthy. Rodgers just had an MVP year and he is 37. Stafford just turned 33, unless he has a major shoulder injury or blows out an achilles, it pretty safe to say he is good to go for 4 or 5 years.

[danlhart87]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

[danlhart87]

[shasta519]

8 hours ago, Tsarquise said:

I think you meant 2015-2016 Denver defense. 

Yeah...got my years mixed up. The defense that Manning. 

[stitches]

21 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Well...  Stafford just turned 33.   His next 5 years would be his age 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 seasons.    I don’t think that seems unreasonable.   Besides Brady, isn't Brees 40?   Isn't Roethlisberger getting up there?   Isnt Rodgers up there?   Isn't Matt Ryan trending there?
 

Someone else here posted that Stafford has missed 8 career games.   They all came in the same season.  Otherwise he hasn’t missed a game.    I’ve read some posters here calling Stafford beat up.  I think that’s a poor description. 
 

I don't know how to describe Stafford. He's been durable for sure. He's also played through some injuries. But there is no way to predict how aging will affect his physical ability. You mention Brady and Brees and Matt Ryan but they are much different QBs, and they win in completely different ways to Stafford. Stafford is closer to big Ben and we've seen him deteriorate significantly in the last several years(some of it is injury related too). Think of other big armed QBs that relied heavily on that part of their game. Ben, Flacco... I guess Rodgers is the desireable path here, but again... Rodgers is a first ballot HoF and potentially the most talented QB in the history of the league. Stafford has never even sniffed that level of play to begin with. The worst Aaron Rodgers seasons blows Stafford's best out of the water. Notice that all the QBs you mentioned are QBs that have high level of processing the game(something that's not likely to deteriorate with time). Stafford is not at that level in this aspect, he relies heavily on his physical gifts to win. Also, all of the examples you give are of future first ballot HoFers(they have higher level of skill), while Stafford has never really played at that type of level... In other words - they have higher base level from which they can slide and still be good/playable QBs. This is not the case with Stafford. 

 

20 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

He's 11 years younger than Brady. 5 years isn't really a huge stretch IMO. In the last 10 years, he's only missed games in one of those seasons. That was 2019 when he had the spinal fracture or something like that. He's been very reliable overall. 

And spinal fracture is not worrying for a QB going into his mid-30s? Like sure, I am not saying he will break down tomorrow. I think you can expect him to be good for the next year or two. I'm not sure you can expect much past that... it's really a coin flip IMO. 

[shasta519]

8 hours ago, w87r said:

2019 SF:

#3 in yds per game

#2 in rush yds per game

#8 in pass yds per game

#5 in pts per game.

#3 in QBR against

#1 in sacks

 

2014 DEN:

#8 in yds per game

#5 in rush yds per game

#9 in pass yds per game

#7 in pts per game.

#2 in QBR against

#12 in sacks

 

2020 TB:

#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

 

https://www.covers.com/sport/football/nfl/statistics/team-defense/2014-2015

https://www.covers.com/sport/football/nfl/statistics/team-defense/2019-2020

https://www.covers.com/sport/football/nfl/statistics/team-defense/2020-2021

I was talking about the 2015 DEN team. They were #1 in DVOA..:probably one of the better defenses in the past two decades.

 

TB was #5 in DVOA this year. I think that’s attainable for the Colts.

 

But this just speaks to how good a team has to be to jus to plug in a vet QB and compete for a SB. Even one as good as Brady.

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know how to describe Stafford. He's been durable for sure. He's also played through some injuries. But there is no way to predict how aging will affect his physical ability. You mention Brees and Matt Ryan but they are much different QBs, and they win in completely different ways to Stafford. Stafford is closer to big Ben and we've seen him deteriorate significantly in the last several years(some of it is injury related too). Think of other big armed QBs that relied heavily on that part of their game. Ben, Flacco... I guess Rodgers is the desireable path here, but again... Rodgers is a first ballot HoF and potentially the most talented QB in the history of the league. Stafford has never even sniffed that level of play to begin with. The worst Aaron Rodgers seasons blows Stafford's best out of the water. Notice that all the QBs you mentioned are QBs that have high level of processing the game(something that's not likely to deteriorate with time). Stafford is not at that level in this aspect, he relies heavily on his physical gifts to win. 

 

And spinal fracture is not worrying for a QB going into his mid-30s? Like sure, I am not saying he will break down tomorrow. I think you can expect him to be good for the next year or two. I'm not sure you can expect much past that... it's really a coin flip IMO. 

Put simply....

 

Im just not sure the Colts have a lot of options.  Few are good, and they will all be too expensive.   Just as a trade up in the draft is no guarantee of success.   It’s all calculated risk.   I’m counting on Ballard to know far more than we do on this website.  
 

All we can do is hope for the best.... 

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Nobody really knows but there have been lots of QB's play well into their late 30's other than Brady. Peyton, Brees, Rivers, are just 3 examples. Stafford is relatively healthy. Rodgers just had an MVP year and he is 37. Stafford just turned 33, unless he has a major shoulder injury or blows out an achilles, it pretty safe to say he is good to go for 4 or 5 years.

But again - think about it... we are making comparisons with first ballot HoF and most of them played much different style than Stafford. Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rivers... ALL of them have a game that is heavily reliant on smarts and reading the game and skill. Those don't deteriorate with age. It's the physical ability that does, which is what Stafford is reliant on. Plus again... we are comparing with first ballot HoF... Stafford is not that. He's never been that. They can drop in level of play and still be good. Can Stafford suffer similar drop of play to what Rivers suffered over the last several years and still be anywhere close to average QB? I don't think so... 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

But again - think about it... we are making comparisons with first ballot HoF and most of them played much different style than Stafford. Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rivers... ALL of them have a game that is heavily reliant on smarts and reading the game and skill. Those don't deteriorate with age. It's the physical ability that does, which is what Stafford is reliant on. Plus again... we are comparing with first ballot HoF... Stafford is not that. He's never been that. They can drop in level of play and still be good. Can Stafford suffer similar drop of play to what Rivers suffered over the last several years and still be anywhere close to average QB? I don't think so... 

Good points, I think Stafford can read defenses well though. Of course he isn't a 1st ballot HOFamer at least IMO and you agree with me but he is a good QB. He has had the unfortunate pleasure playing with stinky Detroit for a decade. He had Johnson for a while but that team has never been a good team overall. 

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Put simply....

 

Im just not sure the Colts have a lot of options.  Few are good, and they will all be too expensive.   Just as a trade up in the draft is no guarantee of success.   It’s all calculated risk.   I’m counting on Ballard to know far more than we do on this website.  
 

All we can do is hope for the best.... 

That's true. No team without a franchise QB is in a good position. And the options that are available are available for a reason... (not because they are long-term franchise QBs... nobody gives that up). So yeah... this is why Ballard is paid the big bucks. I'm not opposed to trading for Stafford, IMO that's one of the best 3 options we have, but I don't want to fool myself into thinking he's anything but a temporary fix, similar to Rivers. That's the reason that even though I would be OK with trading for him, I still prefer going with the draft if Ballard likes a QB in the draft. I would much rather give up an additional 1st round pick to trade up in the draft for a QB Ballard loves than give the same compensation for Stafford. 

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Good points, I think Stafford can read defenses well though. Of course he isn't a 1st ballot HOFamer at least IMO and you agree with me but he is a good QB. He has had the unfortunate pleasure playing with stinky Detroit for a decade. He had Johnson for a while but that team has never been a good team overall. 

Oh he is good... IMO he's been hovering around the 8-12 range for a while, which if you have good enough roster, should be good enough for some playoff runs once in a while. It's an indictment on Detroit management that he's never won a playoff game more than on him. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

Oh he is good... IMO he's been hovering around the 8-12 range for a while, which if you have good enough roster, should be good enough for some playoff runs once in a while. It's an indictment on Detroit management that he's never won a playoff game more than on him. 

I agree, he is good but probably not a HOfamer unless he comes here and wins a SB . Really other than the Patriots over the last 15 years since the 2006 season we have the winningest franchise in football, a great Owner and GM, and a good coach.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

That's true. No team without a franchise QB is in a good position. And the options that are available are available for a reason... (not because they are long-term franchise QBs... nobody gives that up). So yeah... this is why Ballard is paid the big bucks. I'm not opposed to trading for Stafford, IMO that's one of the best 3 options we have, but I don't want to fool myself into thinking he's anything but a temporary fix, similar to Rivers. That's the reason that even though I would be OK with trading for him, I still prefer going with the draft if Ballard likes a QB in the draft. I would much rather give up an additional 1st round pick to trade up in the draft for a QB Ballard loves than give the same compensation for Stafford. 

 

Judging by what Irsay had to say at his year ender,  it doesn't look like that Ballard will wait to the draft to pull the trigger, unless he strikes out in a trade for every veteran we've talked about.   From Stafford, to Rodgers, to Ryan,  to Carr,  to Garropolo and so on....

 

Irsay was saying he, Ballard and Frank all think they're close.  (his words)  So, the quickest and most direct path to future success is a trade for a veteran (my words, but his implication)    Irsay didn't rule out a draft pick in April.  

 

I suspect you're old enough to understand the concept I'm about to address.   I think one of the most interesting concepts adults deal with in all walks of life is that sometimes,  there are no good options.   There are only poor options or bad options.  And the job is to try and figure out which option is the least bad.   I'm not just talking sports,  but all things in life.   Sometimes there just are no good options.   And, I think the Colts are pretty close to being there.   But, you find the best choice there is and chalk it up to the price of doing business in the NFL.     What else can we do?

 

Sorry if this got preachy....    didn't mean for it to.

 

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Judging by what Irsay had to say at his year ender,  it doesn't look like that Ballard will wait to the draft to pull the trigger, unless he strikes out in a trade for every veteran we've talked about.   From Stafford, to Rodgers, to Ryan,  to Carr,  to Garropolo and so on....

Yeah, that's what I got from his press-conference too. That's what I got from Ballard's presser earlier this month too - he will prefer addressing QB with a vet. 

 

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Irsay was saying he, Ballard and Frank all think they're close.  (his words)  So, the quickest and most direct path to future success is a trade for a veteran (my words, but his implication)    Irsay didn't rule out a draft pick in April.  

Yep. Ballard said something similar to that effect too - they think they are close. I think they are somewhat close, but I do think several positions(most important ones) need addressing and we will need injury luck. I don't think we are Matt Stafford away. I think we are Matt Stafford, good LT, good WR, good DE and good CB away... and that's assuming good health. In essence, my position right now is - if you are getting Stafford, you better be ready to address all those other positions or you are wasting your resources on a team that will ultimately come short. 

 

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I suspect you're old enough to understand the concept I'm about to address.   I think one of the most interesting concepts adults deal with in all walks of life is that sometimes,  there are no good options.   There are only poor options or bad options.  And the job is to try and figure out which option is the least bad.   I'm not just talking sports,  but all things in life.   Sometimes there just are no good options.   And, I think the Colts are pretty close to being there.   But, you find the best choice there is and chalk it up to the price of doing business in the NFL.     What else can we do?

 

Sorry if this got preachy....    didn't mean for it to.

 

That's the thing. I think there is a good option. Not ideal, but good. It's trading up in the draft for one of the top 4 prospects. I think all of them are high level prospects that can be franchise QBs. This is a good draft. This is the type of draft you trade up in for the guy you love. Here comes the less than ideal part - this would mean we probably take a slight step back next year. But again... we have SO MANY high value positions unaddressed that we might take a step back either way unless we are ready to go all in with Stafford. Right at this moment we are a worse team than last year. Our franchise LT just retired. Our QB just retired. We have TY, Houston, Autry, Rhodes, Walker, Carrie, Muhammad, Burton, Alie Cox ... to re-sign. So... our best WR, both our starting DEs, both our starting outside corners(by the end Carrie was getting more snaps than Rock), 2 of 3 TEs, our starting MIKE, our backup DE...

 

In essence we have 70M cap to address: QB, LT, 2xDE, 2xCB, MIKE, 1 or 2 WRs, possibly TE... I'm not sure we will be able to. 

 

Holy moly, the more I look at our situation the more I don't like where we are and the more I think Stafford won't be enough to even get us to this year's level. I don't know... I have to rethink things... I might do another mock off-season post Senior Bowl to put my thoughts on paper and see how it shakes up if we have to trade up multiple high level picks for Stafford. 

[csmopar]

3 hours ago, stitches said:

Yeah, that's what I got from his press-conference too. That's what I got from Ballard's presser earlier this month too - he will prefer addressing QB with a vet. 

 

Yep. Ballard said something similar to that effect too - they think they are close. I think they are somewhat close, but I do think several positions(most important ones) need addressing and we will need injury luck. I don't think we are Matt Stafford away. I think we are Matt Stafford, good LT, good WR, good DE and good CB away... and that's assuming good health. In essence, my position right now is - if you are getting Stafford, you better be ready to address all those other positions or you are wasting your resources on a team that will ultimately come short. 

 

That's the thing. I think there is a good option. Not ideal, but good. It's trading up in the draft for one of the top 4 prospects. I think all of them are high level prospects that can be franchise QBs. This is a good draft. This is the type of draft you trade up in for the guy you love. Here comes the less than ideal part - this would mean we probably take a slight step back next year. But again... we have SO MANY high value positions unaddressed that we might take a step back either way unless we are ready to go all in with Stafford. Right at this moment we are a worse team than last year. Our franchise LT just retired. Our QB just retired. We have TY, Houston, Autry, Rhodes, Walker, Carrie, Muhammad, Burton, Alie Cox ... to re-sign. So... our best WR, both our starting DEs, both our starting outside corners(by the end Carrie was getting more snaps than Rock), 2 of 3 TEs, our starting MIKE, our backup DE...

 

In essence we have 70M cap to address: QB, LT, 2xDE, 2xCB, MIKE, 1 or 2 WRs, possibly TE... I'm not sure we will be able to. 

 

Holy moly, the more I look at our situation the more I don't like where we are and the more I think Stafford won't be enough to even get us to this year's level. I don't know... I have to rethink things... I might do another mock off-season post Senior Bowl to put my thoughts on paper and see how it shakes up if we have to trade up multiple high level picks for Stafford. 

We’re actually in a decent situation. The salaries this year for FA aren’t going to be as bad as in previous years. Not with half the leagues OVER the cap. And another 6-8 with less than 15 million to play with. The top 10 teams with cap space mostly have mid 20s, top 5 is where the cap space finally gives breathing room for big signings, Colts I think are number 2 or 3 with 65 million. We have holes, yes, but I’m confident Ballard can fill them. The only spot I think he’s struggled with is WR in the draft so I’d sign one of those, the rest, draft away

[joeb]

8 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Before giving up Leonard I would trade our 21st, this years 3rd and next years 3rd for Stafford.

Im pretty sure it will cost more than that.

[richard pallo]

8 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

This is interesting and why a extension would be good.

 

 

I'm hoping that is what's taking place and hence the delay in announcing the trade.  But I have to say the team I'm most worried about is SF and Lynch as their GM.  He is not afraid to make bold moves and pay for them like Jimmy G.  He and Ballard are both trying to win now.  I can see Lynch upping the ante more than I can see Ballard.  We will see if it comes down to Ballard folding or not.  

[richard pallo]

6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Good points, I think Stafford can read defenses well though. Of course he isn't a 1st ballot HOFamer at least IMO and you agree with me but he is a good QB. He has had the unfortunate pleasure playing with stinky Detroit for a decade. He had Johnson for a while but that team has never been a good team overall. 

I think if he comes to the Colts and wins a SB and continues to play well he will certainly become a HOF.  

[Smoke317]

Was listening to JMV & Kevin Bowen discussing the Colts QB situation and the press conference Irsay had with the media.  Heard some very interesting things. They talked about Irsay mentioning a veteran vision in the QB room.  Of course this lead to Stafford trade talk.  Bowen brought up a scenario where he said the Lions could take our 1st (21st) & theirs (7th) and combine them to move up to 2nd and draft Justin Fields.  
 

Then the discussion turned to “what if” bidding for Stafford gets too expensive.  Would the Colts look at other veterans or draft a QB.  That’s when JMB made the statement that he’s heard (don’t know how good his sources are inside Colts HQ but gotta believe he knows someone in there) that the ONLY QB in the draft that interests the Colts is Justin Fields.

 

That statement shocked me.  I’m clearly the biggest Fields fan on here (so much so that I’d trade whatever was necessary to move up to get him).  Do you guys think the CB & staff truly feel that way about Fields or are they using gamesmanship hoping to influence the Lions to want to jump on him so we could get Stafford from them for a good deal and not have to give up too much draft capital??  Because before giving up two 1sts for Stafford or a 1st and multiple other high picks (2nds), I’d rather go up and get Fields.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Will SF want Watson. If so this helps us with Stafford.

 

 

[Myles]

7 hours ago, stitches said:

But again - think about it... we are making comparisons with first ballot HoF and most of them played much different style than Stafford. Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rivers... ALL of them have a game that is heavily reliant on smarts and reading the game and skill. Those don't deteriorate with age. It's the physical ability that does, which is what Stafford is reliant on. Plus again... we are comparing with first ballot HoF... Stafford is not that. He's never been that. They can drop in level of play and still be good. Can Stafford suffer similar drop of play to what Rivers suffered over the last several years and still be anywhere close to average QB? I don't think so... 

You mean when Rivers had the best year of his career at age 37?

 

Stafford would be a great fit for the next 3-5 years and it would give the Colts the chance to find a QB of the future.   I'd rather have Stafford than take a chance with Eason or a draft pick for next season.   This team is very good outside the QB spot.