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

[DougDew]

11 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/nfl-mock-draft-2021

 

I'd rather have Carrisaw than Wilson.

[danlhart87]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I'd rather have Carrisaw than Wilson.

I'm not familiar with everybody yet. Who is that?

[shasta519]

12 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/nfl-mock-draft-2021

 

 

That would set up nicely to get another pass catcher on Day Two.

[richard pallo]

12 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/nfl-mock-draft-2021

 

This is a flyer with the 1st pick if I ever saw one.  The fact they said he would be throwing to a talented set of receivers does not hold water either.  We have a developmental QB in Eason.  That pick should afford us many choices besides another developmental QB.  

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, danlhart87 said:

I'm not familiar with everybody yet. Who is that?

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

 

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

[danlhart87]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

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

 

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

Love the idea of going LT

If Rivers comes back chances are high on LT

[Rally5]

On 12/8/2020 at 1:19 PM, w87r said:

We dont have $30m to pay Wentz.

 

 

Darnold only would cost $4.7m next year

With no QB on the roster next year under contract other than Eason?  Right now we have two QB's over 40M right?  Plus assuming you give up a draft pick of some kind, that would also be money not spent plus I believe we ~90M of cap space going into '21.  I know we have a lot of guys to sign as well, I'm keen to that but I don't think the money is the issue.  Please explain to me why this wouldn't work (not being sarcastic).

[Rally5]

On 12/9/2020 at 5:57 PM, NewColtsFan said:

Good post.

 

But the only way we’re trading for Wentz is if he agrees to restructure his deal and sharply lower his number.   Trading for him on his current deal is a complete non-starter.  Take a look at his contract over at Spotrac.  It’s way too generous.   I like Wentz, but not at that number.   Not even close. 

He could restructure. He was an MVP candidate under Frank.  We currently have +40M wrapped up in two QB's.  Assuming Wentz still can play at a high level, that would be the bet here, what is that worth with Eason positioned as a back up?  I believe we net save over the current scenario?

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, Rally5 said:

He could restructure. He was an MVP candidate under Frank.  We currently have +40M wrapped up in two QB's.  Assuming Wentz still can play at a high level, that would be the bet here, what is that worth with Eason positioned as a back up?  I believe we net save over the current scenario?

Good point.  People forget just how much we're paying the QB position right now.  If Wentz is worth 25 to 30 mil per year, that's an easy trigger to pull IMO.  With his contract, and if Philly really wants to move to Jalen Hurts for football and non football reasons (ya know, Philly is kind of one of those outspoken "social justice" cities), they might accept only a second round pick.

[Rally5]

Just now, DougDew said:

Good point.  People forget just how much we're paying the QB position right now.  If Wentz is worth 25 to 30 mil per year, that's an easy trigger to pull IMO.  With his contract, and if Philly really wants to move to Jalen Hurts for football and non football reasons (ya know, Philly is kind of one of those outspoken "social justice" cities), they might accept only a second round pick.

That exactly what I'm thinking.  Candidly, I'd roll the dice on Wentz, especially if we think Eason is viable too.  We won't be positioned for many rookies that met the job requirements best I can tell.  If this team is to win big, we need a long term solution at QB, I don't see a better option albeit, it's far from risk free, but the math does work unless there's some cap wonk here that can explain otherwise.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Rally5 said:

That exactly what I'm thinking.  Candidly, I'd roll the dice on Wentz, especially if we think Eason is viable too.  We won't be positioned for many rookies that met the job requirements best I can tell.  If this team is to win big, we need a long term solution at QB, I don't see a better option albeit, it's far from risk free, but the math does work unless there's some cap wonk here that can explain otherwise.

Frankly, I prefer Rivers for one more year though.  I like what his personality brings to the team.  I used to think he was a big mouth and annoying when he played for Chargers a while back, but came to understand him more.  Now I would like him to succeed and the Colts to succeed with him.  Not the most objectively football way to look at it though. 

[EastStreet]

19 minutes ago, Rally5 said:

He could restructure. He was an MVP candidate under Frank.  We currently have +40M wrapped up in two QB's.  Assuming Wentz still can play at a high level, that would be the bet here, what is that worth with Eason positioned as a back up?  I believe we net save over the current scenario?

Our QB situation, financially speaking, this year, is not something you should be using as a baseline. And paying that much for a guy who is on the "down" right now is not a good value. Folks thinking that Wentz's one good year was all Frank's doing, is really assumptive too. I'm not a Wentz hater, or totally opposed to him as an option, but realistically paying a king's fortune for down stock simply is bad business. 

[Rally5]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Frankly, I prefer Rivers for one more year though.  I like what his personality brings to the team.  I used to think he was a big mouth and annoying when he played for Chargers a while back, but came to understand him more.  Now I would like him to succeed and the Colts to succeed with him.  Not the most objectively football way to look at it though. 

He's done the job, no doubt, can he win us a Super Bowl? Man, I just don't think so...the immobility is just too extraordinary IMO.  I'd love to be wrong, let's win a Super Bowl and everyone come on here and tell me I'm wrong...I'd listen that all day long with a big !  So I guess it depends on what we aspire to, we'll win games with Philip, can we win the last one?

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, Rally5 said:

He's done the job, no doubt, can he win us a Super Bowl? Man, I just don't think so...the immobility is just too extraordinary IMO.  I'd love to be wrong, let's win a Super Bowl and everyone come on here and tell me I'm wrong...I'd listen that all day long with a big !  So I guess it depends on what we aspire to, we'll win games with Philip, can we win the last one?

At this point, he probably needs a better supporting cast.  If TY could get open down the field like he used to and we had a TE who could have a Gates, Clark, Ebron like season, yeah, I think he could get us there.

 

The dude is immobile, but he gets rid of the ball like in 1.5 seconds.

[Rally5]

14 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Our QB situation, financially speaking, this year, is not something you should be using as a baseline. And paying that much for a guy who is on the "down" right now is not a good value. Folks thinking that Wentz's one good year was all Frank's doing, is really assumptive too. I'm not a Wentz hater, or totally opposed to him as an option, but realistically paying a king's fortune for down stock simply is bad business. 

Well, we're looking for a needle in a haystack are we?  We won't be positioned to draft low, there aren't great FA's out there at QB just looking for a job and we don't have a long term answer.  So it's easy to say no to potential when there's no guarantee.  The question is who's the best option for this team to win a SB?  Not really about the playoffs, we can be a perpetual 9-7 / 10-6 club and maybe win a playoff game.  That's fine if you're Cleveland but that's not us. So what to do?  I see Wentz as a young QB with all the tools and experience having a really bad go of it.  Remember, Peyton had his share of really bad years too (not a perfect example but you get the point).  It's very rare to have a guy like that potentially on the market and also be in position to get him.  I do it in a second and if we're wrong the delta isn't that great.  Look at 17, 18, and 19 numbers, I think this year is the anomaly.

 

 

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, Rally5 said:

Well, we're looking for a needle in a haystack are we?  We won't be positioned to draft low, there aren't great FA's out there at QB just looking for a job and we don't have a long term answer.  So it's easy to say no to potential when there's no guarantee.  The question is who's the best option for this team to win a SB?  Not really about the playoffs, we can be a perpetual 9-7 / 10-6 club and maybe win a playoff game.  That's fine if you're Cleveland but that's not us. So what to do?  I see Wentz as a young QB with all the tools and experience having a really bad go of it.  Remember, Peyton had his share of really bad years too (not a perfect example but you get the point).  It's very rare to have a guy like that potentially on the market and also be in position to get him.  I do it in a second and if we're wrong the delta isn't that great. 

I would not put Wentz in the same sentence as Manning. Manning had "bad" years, but only had one sub 70 QBR year (since QBR was introduced), and that was his last year in Denver. Wentz has only had one year over 70. 

 

Not sure it's even the money some think it is. I heard some talking heads suggest the receiving team could end up only being on the hook for 25M for 2021. 

 

I'm not buying the "rareness" sentiment though. I don't think he's that special to begin with, so not really rare to me. Again, not opposed to him, just opposed to paying a ton for someone who's become questionable. I'm really interested to see how Hurts does, before making any hard judgement though.

 

And I'm not sure we're as desperate as some think either, to really be on the needle/haystack search. We have no idea about Eason. Rivers for another season is good possibility (and probably my preference). There are some decent QBs this year (Trask/Wilson) that will likely be available 15ish to 20ish that won't take a lot to move up for (if that was what we wanted to do).

 

If Rivers and Eason aren't in the cards, personally I'd take a shot at Trask. Kid has been lights out. 70+% completions, 38/3 TD/INT, 360 ypg, and had 95ish QBRs against both TAMU and UGA, both who have good SEC Ds. Anyway, we have more options than folks think. We're only really out of the Lawrence and Fields sweepstakes.

[NorthernColt]

21 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

I'm not familiar with everybody yet. Who is that?

I think he means Darrisaw. LT.

[DougDew]

28 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I would not put Wentz in the same sentence as Manning. Manning had "bad" years, but only had one sub 70 QBR year (since QBR was introduced), and that was his last year in Denver. Wentz has only had one year over 70. 

 

Not sure it's even the money some think it is. I heard some talking heads suggest the receiving team could end up only being on the hook for 25M for 2021. 

 

I'm not buying the "rareness" sentiment though. I don't think he's that special to begin with, so not really rare to me. Again, not opposed to him, just opposed to paying a ton for someone who's become questionable. I'm really interested to see how Hurts does, before making any hard judgement though.

 

And I'm not sure we're as desperate as some think either, to really be on the needle/haystack search. We have no idea about Eason. Rivers for another season is good possibility (and probably my preference). There are some decent QBs this year (Trask/Wilson) that will likely be available 15ish to 20ish that won't take a lot to move up for (if that was what we wanted to do).

 

If Rivers and Eason aren't in the cards, personally I'd take a shot at Trask. Kid has been lights out. 70+% completions, 38/3 TD/INT, 360 ypg, and had 95ish QBRs against both TAMU and UGA, both who have good SEC Ds. Anyway, we have more options than folks think. We're only really out of the Lawrence and Fields sweepstakes.

Prefer Trask over Wilson.  Haven't seen either play a lot, but Trask strikes me as having the NFL game while Wilson seems more like a very good college QB.

[w87r]

1 hour ago, Rally5 said:

With no QB on the roster next year under contract other than Eason?  Right now we have two QB's over 40M right?  Plus assuming you give up a draft pick of some kind, that would also be money not spent plus I believe we ~90M of cap space going into '21.  I know we have a lot of guys to sign as well, I'm keen to that but I don't think the money is the issue.  Please explain to me why this wouldn't work (not being sarcastic).

Go look at the salary cap thread that is pinned.

 

 

We don't have $90m in cap space, we have $67m, with only 38 guys signed.

 

If we sign/trade for a QB making $30m, we will have $37m to sign 14 other guys, that doesn't include PS players, which will account for $1.5m. 

 

After all that we would still need to keep some cap for in season spending($5-$10m). So would give us under $30m to fill out the roster really. Tough decisions loom ahead.

 

Go look through salary cap thread at important guys who are FA and potential contracts to resign them.

 

 

That is why $30m doesn't work.

 

Im hoping if Rivers comes back he will take around $20m or less, but even that makes our cap space tight.

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Prefer Trask over Wilson.  Haven't seen either play a lot, but Trask strikes me as having the NFL game while Wilson seems more like a college QB in the Brees mold.

I prefer Trask too. But I disagree on Wilson. He's looked very polished in the few games I've watched. He's improved his accuracy big time over last year. Good leader too.

 

I've watched Trask a bunch this year. I've watched Wilson at least twice, maybe three times. I am surprised though that Wilson is creeping up the board (some have him going before Lance now), while Trask is all over the place (mid 1st to 2nd).

 

One of the latest mocks has Indy taking Trask in the 2nd. I don't see him lasting that long. He's a guy I could see doing very well with the Pats.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/2021-nfl-mock-draft-trevor-sikkema-3.0

 

[stitches]

24 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I prefer Trask too. But I disagree on Wilson. He's looked very polished in the few games I've watched. He's improved his accuracy big time over last year. Good leader too.

 

I've watched Trask a bunch this year. I've watched Wilson at least twice, maybe three times. I am surprised though that Wilson is creeping up the board (some have him going before Lance now), while Trask is all over the place (mid 1st to 2nd).

 

One of the latest mocks has Indy taking Trask in the 2nd. I don't see him lasting that long. He's a guy I could see doing very well with the Pats.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/2021-nfl-mock-draft-trevor-sikkema-3.0

 

Playmaking is the answer. The new age QBs are expected to be playmakers. Trask is a pocket QB with limited mobility and playmaking outside of structure. Wilson is a modern day QB with very good mobility and playmaking out of structure in addition to massively improved decisionmaking and accuracy in the last year. I think @DougDewcompared him to Jake Fromm and I couldn't disagree more. They are completely different players. Fromm couldn't playmake out of structure to save his life. Wilson is more in the Love mold with better accuracy and decisions(probably slightly worse arm-strength). 

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, stitches said:

Playmaking is the answer. The new age QBs are expected to be playmakers. Trask is a pocket QB with limited mobility and playmaking outside of structure. Wilson is a modern day QB with very good mobility and playmaking out of structure in addition to massively improved decisionmaking and accuracy in the last year. I think @DougDewcompared him to Jake Fromm and I couldn't disagree more. They are completely different players. Fromm couldn't playmake out of structure to save his life. Wilson is more in the Love mold with better accuracy and decisions(probably slightly worse arm-strength). 

It wasn't a comparison with a conclusion of similarities.  Without seeing him play much, Wilson is only 6.3 203 and isn't known as a runner, more of a scrambler.  Seems to have slow reads and holds the ball from what I read.  I also called him a bigger Anthony Gordon.  At least Fromm was a stocky 222 at 6.278.

 

I was just quickly comparing Wilson to the QBs from last year.  He's not Burrow, Herbert, or Eason.  Not physical like Hurts.  That was my point.  I said that he seems more like a 33 to 50 pick rather than a 20, which is where he was mocked to us.  Fromm was a 4th and Gordon wasn't even drafted.

 

Frankly, if Wilson has worse arm strength than Love, who was only little stronger than Fromm, and at only 6.3 203, I might call him Chad Pennington. LOL. 

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It wasn't a comparison with a conclusion of similarities.  Without seeing him play much, Wilson is only 6.3 203 and isn't known as a runner.  Seems to have slow reads from what I read.  I also called him a bigger Anthony Gordon. 

 

I was just quickly comparing Wilson to the QBs from last year.  He's not Burrow, Herbert, or Eason.  Not physical like Hurts.  That was my point.  I said that he seems more like a 33 to 50 pick rather than a 20, which is where he was mocked to us.  Fromm was a 4th and Gordon wasn't even drafted.

He's not a running QB, but he can run. I.e. he's not Wilson/Murray/Lamar... he's more in the mold of Luck/Mahomes/Wentz/Herbert when it comes to his running. He has 8 rushing TDs this year, just as an example. IMO precisely because he's nothing like Fromm or Gordon he will probably get drafted in the 1st. 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

He's not a running QB, but he can run. I.e. he's not Wilson/Murray/Lamar... he's more in the mold of Luck/Mahomes/Wentz/Herbert when it comes to his running. He has 8 rushing TDs this year, just as an example. 

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't like 6.3 203.  Too short and too skinny, IMO.  One or the other is okay, but not both.  Not that he can't play, but I'd move on to other choices at QB, including keeping Rivers and waiting on Eason.

[indyagent17]

So no faith in Eason?

 

[EastStreet]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

Playmaking is the answer. The new age QBs are expected to be playmakers. Trask is a pocket QB with limited mobility and playmaking outside of structure. Wilson is a modern day QB with very good mobility and playmaking out of structure in addition to massively improved decisionmaking and accuracy in the last year. I think @DougDewcompared him to Jake Fromm and I couldn't disagree more. They are completely different players. Fromm couldn't playmake out of structure to save his life. Wilson is more in the Love mold with better accuracy and decisions(probably slightly worse arm-strength). 

There's still a lot of coaches who are fine with pocket passers. IMO, he'd (Trask) fit Reich's system well. IMO, he'll be fine in a spread O, or simply any team with a good OL.

 

Wilson IMO is a wildcard. I'm not sold on his arm, but more concerned about the level of competition he's played against. Coastal made him look pretty pedestrian.

 

I agree he's nothing like Fromm. Fromm is a straight up game manager with very limited physical skills. I disagree though on the Love comparison. Love is a tale of two years. His last year was basically playing with whole new team, and a huge step down in talent and coaching around him, not to mention 10.5 new starters. I would say that both have similar arm strength though.

3 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

So no faith in Eason?

 

Nobody knows anything about Eason, so hard to have faith at this point.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I guess when it comes down to it, I don't like 6.3 203.  Too short and too skinny, IMO.  Not that he can't play, but I'd move on to other choices at QB, including keeping Rivers and waiting on Eason.

To be fair a lot of those measurements are old and not updated recently. And I don't really put too much on them. Lets see him measure at the combine. He doesn't look skinny to me, but he kind of also doesn't look 6'3". I don't know... guessing those by eye is a futile endeavor. I'm more concerned with how he plays. Especially if he's going to sit a year, he will have plenty of time to get his body in great shape if he's not already. 

 

About Eason - that would be the best case scenario - if the coaching staff and Ballard think he can be the guy, avoiding giving up multiple premier picks for a QB would accelerate the path to true contention. We would be able to draft a LT or a DE or... a CB... or maybe even another WR... 

[stitches]

16 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

There's still a lot of coaches who are fine with pocket passers. IMO, he'd (Trask) fit Reich's system well. IMO, he'll be fine in a spread O, or simply any team with a good OL.

 

Wilson IMO is a wildcard. I'm not sold on his arm, but more concerned about the level of competition he's played against. Coastal made him look pretty pedestrian.

 

I agree he's nothing like Fromm. Fromm is a straight up game manager with very limited physical skills. I disagree though on the Love comparison. Love is a tale of two years. His last year was basically playing with whole new team, and a huge step down in talent and coaching around him, not to mention 10.5 new starters. I would say that both have similar arm strength though.

Nobody knows anything about Eason, so hard to have faith at this point.

I don't know if I'm being too stuborn but ... I think I liked Love better than Wilson   That's my hill I guess....  Even though, Wilson obviously has better accuracy and decisionmaking. I think Love had better arm. I too am not sure about Wilson's arm. If I had to pick an area where I think he's overrated that's it. The other part with Wilson that worries me a bit is the spin away from pressure(perceived or real... kind of like Eason did BTW) and more often than not he doesn't need to do it. 

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't know if I'm being too stuborn but ... I think I liked Love better than Wilson   That's my hill I guess....  Even though, Wilson obviously has better accuracy and decisionmaking. I think Love had better arm. I too am not sure about Wilson's arm. If I had to pick an area where I think he's overrated that's it. The other part with Wilson that worries me a bit is the spin away from pressure(perceived or real... kind of like Eason did BTW) and more often than not he doesn't need to do it. 

I liked, and still like, Love better than Wilson. 

 

The pocket jumping habit you mention, is why I actually like Trask. He hangs in and makes tough throws. He's had good WRs to make him look better than he really is, but even if you discount those, his numbers would still be very very good.

[Rolltide_gocolts]

If we make a big move.. let’s trade up and grab Justin fields 

 

if we take one in the first round get Mac Jones or Trey Lance...

 

 If e we go tackle in the first get Ian book, Zach Wilson, Kyle trask in the 2nd 

[w87r]

2 hours ago, Rolltide_gocolts said:

If we make a big move.. let’s trade up and grab Justin fields 

 

if we take one in the first round get Mac Jones or Trey Lance...

 

 If e we go tackle in the first get Ian book, Zach Wilson, Kyle trask in the 2nd 

I saw a mock draft with Mac Jones going to us in the 20's. I wouldn't be upset at that at all. Imo, outside Lawrence he might be the best QB coming in.

[PRnum1]

When I watch Trask he's a pure pocket passer that is very accurate and throws with alot of touch and anticipation. I don't think he has the big arm. He has a talent for throwing receivers open but I don't see alot of zip on his passes.

 

I think if you're going after you're next franchise qb, I would follow the mold of going after the next Josh Allen or even Herbert. Go after the rocket arm and mobility.

 

Eason has the rocket arm but when I watched him at UGA, he didn't seem as accurate as Fromm. Fromm was very accurate on the short to mid range passes.

 

When Eason left for WA I couldn't see his games, but I have always heard that you can't really improve accuracy 

[danlhart87]

4 hours ago, NorthernColt said:

I think he means Darrisaw. LT.

Thanks I kept typing in Carrisaw on Google no luck lol

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

If there is a QB there in the first rd when we pick the colts will have to make a decision. Is the upside of that QB higher then Eason. If not then we should not be taking any QB when we pick in the 20’s. That would be a waste of a pick. If they think there is much more potential in picking a QB where we pick then they might pull the trigger.  The chances are we take a LT with our first pick. We keep rivers and Eason is the backup. Or we trade for another QB and Eason backs up.  

 

Nobody is even thinking about Jacoby. There is going to be so many QB available again I doubt he gets a job anywhere unless he goes back to NE. Would not shock me if he stays on a cheap contract. 

[richard pallo]

What we have to keep in mind is that the only reason we have three QB's on the active roster is because of Covid. There is a very good chance the league will be back to the pre Covid rules by the start of next years regular season.  That would mean two QB's on the active roster and maybe one on the practice squad maybe.  Does Ballard strike you as the type of GM who would draft another QB high in the draft without really seeing Eason in action?  To me if Rivers comes back then it's Rivers and Eason as our two QB's.  If Rivers retires I think it's more likely we acquire another veteran to be the QB or to compete with Eason at the very least.  Drafting another QB high doesn't make sense to me.  I would use the high picks on acquiring other players in a position of need like LT, ER or WR.  Rivers and Buckner were brought in with the plan to win it now.  If Rivers should leave that doesn't change the plan.  It would mean we would need to find another veteran who could win it now and also give us the chance to make an evaluation of Eason.  Keeping in mind that we still want to resign some of our key players the only QB that makes sense to me is Darnold because of his contract and upside.  As of today I don't see us drafting another QB this year. 

[NewColtsFan]

14 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

What we have to keep in mind is that the only reason we have three QB's on the active roster is because of Covid. There is a very good chance the league will be back to the pre Covid rules by the start of next years regular season.  That would mean two QB's on the active roster and maybe one on the practice squad maybe.  Does Ballard strike you as the type of GM who would draft another QB high in the draft without really seeing Eason in action?  To me if Rivers comes back then it's Rivers and Eason as our two QB's.  If Rivers retires I think it's more likely we acquire another veteran to be the QB or to compete with Eason at the very least.  Drafting another QB high doesn't make sense to me.  I would use the high picks on acquiring other players in a position of need like LT, ER or WR.  Rivers and Buckner were brought in with the plan to win it now.  If Rivers should leave that doesn't change the plan.  It would mean we would need to find another veteran who could win it now and also give us the chance to make an evaluation of Eason.  Keeping in mind that we still want to resign some of our key players the only QB that makes sense to me is Darnold because of his contract and upside.  As of today I don't see us drafting another QB this year. 

On balance, I agree with the vast majority of this post. 
 

But,  I’m not sure Covid is the only reason why we have 3 QBs on the active roster.   If I waive my magic wand and eliminate Covid completely I still think we have three.    We still have Rivers and Brissett, we still draft Eason.  And if JE shows anything in the 4 pre-season games, I don’t think Ballard risks losing Eason to a PS claim from some team who wants to try and steal a promising QB.  So, I think CB would still keep him active. 
 

Just my two cents. 

[Defjamz26]

6 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Does Ballard strike you as the type of GM who would draft another QB high in the draft without really seeing Eason in action?

If by high you mean in the 1st round or trading up, then no. But if we’re extending high to mean the 2nd or 3rd rounds then yes. You can’t wait in the QB position. If a guy you believe can be the franchise QB is there you take him. The NFL is a business. Eason doesn’t have to be given a fair shot before you make a move for a QB. Ballard himself basically said post draft that Eason is a 4th round pick and expectations on him should be tempered. He was a low risk low reward pick.

 

Plus Id there wasn’t a pre-season this year, I don’t see why they do one next year, so when exactly do you think we’ll get see Eason in action? You basically won’t see him before the draft. You expect Ballard to pass on a QB with upside because he hasn’t seen Eason yet?

 

If were being honest, I think there’s an answer that makes sense if you look at all the facts

 

-Ballard probably doesn’t want to spend a bunch of draft capital to move up for a QB

-The Colts are in win now and if a change is made from Rivers, they want someone with experience who they can plug in immediately and not have to wait to develop

 

-We do need a young QB who can be a long term answer and will be CHEAP for at least another year or two

 

So if you put all that together and figure the Colts want a young but experienced player who they won’t have to spend a bunch of draft capital on and can be the long term answer, what name fits the bill? Sam Darnold 

[aaron11]

6 hours ago, indyagent17 said:

So no faith in Eason?

 

that would be blind faith at this point.  hopefully they have a preseason next year so we can see where hes at

 

i dont think hes done enough for the team to go through the draft and free agency with him written in as the starter

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

If by high you mean in the 1st round or trading up, then no. But if we’re extending high to mean the 2nd or 3rd rounds then yes. You can’t wait in the QB position. If a guy you believe can be the franchise QB is there you take him. The NFL is a business. Eason doesn’t have to be given a fair shot before you make a move for a QB. Ballard himself basically said post draft that Eason is a 4th round pick and expectations on him should be tempered. He was a low risk low reward pick.

 

Plus Id there wasn’t a pre-season this year, I don’t see why they do one next year, so when exactly do you think we’ll get see Eason in action? You basically won’t see him before the draft. You expect Ballard to pass on a QB with upside because he hasn’t seen Eason yet?

 

If were being honest, I think there’s an answer that makes sense if you look at all the facts

 

-Ballard probably doesn’t want to spend a bunch of draft capital to move up for a QB

-The Colts are in win now and if a change is made from Rivers, they want someone with experience who they can plug in immediately and not have to wait to develop

 

-We do need a young QB who can be a long term answer and will be CHEAP for at least another year or two

 

So if you put all that together and figure the Colts want a young but experienced player who they won’t have to spend a bunch of draft capital on and can be the long term answer, what name fits the bill? Sam Darnold 

Two things.  On Eason, I think you meant low risk high reward.   If he’s low risk, you can expect low reward.   But Eason has enough raw talent that a mid-level pick might give us a high pick reward.  

Plus, the odds at extremely high that there will be a pre-season next year.   While I think some if the early off/season program will be scaled back, I don’t expect it to be as limited as this year.   I think next March, April, May and June looks better than they did in 2020.  So by late July and August, I think we will have some type if pre-season.   Maybe two games and two controlled scrimmages?   Some type of pre-season should happen.  The vaccine should have reached enough people by then to lower the Covid threat a good amount.

 

Better days ahead. 

 

[Rolltide_gocolts]

3 hours ago, w87r said:

I saw a mock draft with Mac Jones going to us in the 20's. I wouldn't be upset at that at all. Imo, outside Lawrence he might be the best QB coming in.

As a die hard tide fan... Mac,  this yr has been tua/burrow level good!! I did not expect that at all..  he’s in my top 3 of qbs I’d love wearing the shoe next yr..

 

 Justin fields

 Mac Jones

 Ian book