Should the Colts have contracted with Brady instead of Rivers?

[Thebrashandthebold 122]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Rivers washed up?? Did you watch the Colts this year? He put up good stats/played good and we went 11-5 and had Buffalo on the ropes. Your posts are starting to confuse me.

I watched him and he was a fence post out there that couldn't move at all. He has always put up numbers but he never won anything. We went 11-5 in spite of Rivers not because of him. We lost to Buffalo because we were completely outcoached. I will agree Rivers was better than I thought but he was nothing like Brady was for Tampa Bay....

[jvan1973 5,483]

1 minute ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

I watched him and he was a fence post out there that couldn't move at all. He has always put up numbers but he never won anything. We went 11-5 in spite of Rivers not because of him. We lost to Buffalo because we were completely outcoached. I will agree Rivers was better than I thought but he was nothing like Brady was for Tampa Bay....

That fence post was far better than Newton

[CR91 6,937]

16 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

You were referring to Weapons.     The post you replied to said,   "look who he has played for"

 

Guess I misread it, but I doubt he meant coaches

[CR91 6,937]

27 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He has had some decent weapons (of course Johnson was great) but their overall team has never been good with the exception of maybe 1 or 2 years. The team we have now in Indy can make a playoff run with Stafford, JMO. The Lions have never had a Line like we have, that makes a huge difference. Rivers isn't even mobile and rarely got sacked and had a good year.

 

Can we win with Stafford, sure, but long term do you see a super bowl with Stafford? My opinion no. I don't see that type of QB. He's a stat QB not a winning QB and there is no way I'm giving up a first round pick for him.

[2006Coltsbestever 22,331]

5 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Guess I misread it, but I doubt he meant coaches

I meant the organization in general which means who runs the team so @jvan1973 had it right. Because of the front office they have never really put a good team on the field with the exception of maybe 1 or 2 years in Stafford's career. 

[IinD 2,146]

I'd honestly be afraid of Stafford having to much 'stink' on him from losing so much. I'm gonna assume he's a paycheck player at this point, show up and get paid.

 

If that carries over to another team remains to be seen of course. No guarantees he'd be reinvigorated to play elsewhere. 

 

That's my one big fear with him specifically.

[2006Coltsbestever 22,331]

11 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Can we win with Stafford, sure, but long term do you see a super bowl with Stafford? My opinion no. I don't see that type of QB. He's a stat QB not a winning QB and there is no way I'm giving up a first round pick for him.

Name 1 QB we can win a SB with that will be available? I am going by best options, unless we get Watson somehow than winning a SB will be a long shot regardless who we get. Stafford would give us as good as chance as any. Who would be your top 3 options?

[2006Coltsbestever 22,331]

2 minutes ago, IinD said:

I'd honestly be afraid of Stafford having to much 'stink' on him from losing so much. I'm gonna assume he's a paycheck player at this point, show up and get paid.

 

If that carries over to another team remains to be seen of course. No guarantees he'd be reinvigorated to play elsewhere. 

 

That's my one big fear with him specifically.

He is getting paid only 9.5 mill a year next year. Wentz is the contract you stay away from.

[CR91 6,937]

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Name 1 QB we can win a SB with that will be available? I am going by best options, unless we get Watson somehow than winning a SB will be a long shot regardless who we get. Stafford would give us as good as chance as any. Who would be your top 3 options?

 

Now? Dak if the cowboys let him go. Other then that, why bother going with vet QBs who yes can get us to the playoffs, but winning in the playoffs is different. We need long term success not a fill in til the real franchise QB is found. Realistically, Dak would be my number one choice if he's available. Two would be Trey Lance. Three Eason.

[2006Coltsbestever 22,331]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Now? Maybe Dak if the cowboys let him go. Other then that, why bother going with vet QBs who yes can get us to the playoffs, but winning in the playoffs is different. We need long term success not a fill in til the real franchise QB is found. Realistically, Dak would be my number one choice if he's available. Two would be Trey Lance. Three Eason.

I do like Trey Lance, he reminds me of a taller version of Watson. He is fast with a strong arm. If we get him I would be happy. Jerry will probably franchise Dak again.

[jvan1973 5,483]

3 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Now? Dak if the cowboys let him go. Other then that, why bother going with vet QBs who yes can get us to the playoffs, but winning in the playoffs is different. We need long term success not a fill in til the real franchise QB is found. Realistically, Dak would be my number one choice if he's available. Two would be Trey Lance. Three Eason.

Dak isn't available 

[CR91 6,937]

14 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Dak isn't available 

 

Hence why I said if he's available. Goodness. 

[jvan1973 5,483]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

Hence why I said if he's available. Goodness. 

He isn't going to be.   Jerry isn't letting him go

[CR91 6,937]

9 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

He isn't going to be.   Jerry isn't letting him go

 

Jerry could have locked him up last year. Dak for all we know can play hardball again especially since how bad the cowboys were without him. Again I said if. It's not likely, but you never know.

[jvan1973 5,483]

1 hour ago, CR91 said:

 

Now? Dak if the cowboys let him go. Other then that, why bother going with vet QBs who yes can get us to the playoffs, but winning in the playoffs is different. We need long term success not a fill in til the real franchise QB is found. Realistically, Dak would be my number one choice if he's available. Two would be Trey Lance. Three Eason.

Also,   what has Dak done that makes you think we can win in the playoffs with him?

[CR91 6,937]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Also,   what has Dak done that makes you think we can win in the playoffs with him?

 

Unlike Stafford, he's been to the playoffs multiple times in his young career already and he's won and also almost beat aaron rodgers

[jvan1973 5,483]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

Unlike Stafford, he's been to the playoffs multiple times in his young career and he's won and also beat aaron rodgers

Stafford has beat the Packers as well.  Not that that means anything.     

[CR91 6,937]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Stafford has beat the Packers as well.  Not that that means anything.     

 

Not in the playoffs and not as a rookie as Dak almost did. Are you seriously trying to convince me Stafford is better then Dak?

[2006Coltsbestever 22,331]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Not in the playoffs and not as a rookie as Dak almost did. Are you seriously trying to convince me Stafford is better then Dak?

Stafford and Dak are on par with each other, Jerry won't let Dak go so he will not be an option.

[CR91 6,937]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Stafford and Dak are on par with each other, Jerry won't let Dak go so he will not be an option.

 

On par? Ok I can believe Dak isn't available, but for you to tell me Stafford is just as good as Dak is laughable.

[2006Coltsbestever 22,331]

29 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

On par? Ok I can believe Dak isn't available, but for you to tell me Stafford is just as good as Dak is laughable.

What has Dak ever won and he has had a great O.Line, Dez in his prime for a couple of years, Cooper who is really good, and has had a top 5 RB in Elliott. Do you realize Stafford has had a season throwing for 5000 yards and almost had another. You say what has Stafford won, what has Dak won? You just don't like Stafford it is obvious now. I tried to have a nice discussion here but it is going nowhere so we will just disagree. 

[CR91 6,937]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

What has Dak ever won and he has had a great O.Line, Dez in his prime for a couple of years, Cooper who is really good, and has had a top 5 RB in Elliott. Do you realize Stafford has had a season throwing for 5000 yards and almost had another. You say what has Stafford won, what has Dak won? You just don't like Stafford it is obvious now. I tried to have a nice discussion here but it is going nowhere so we will just disagree. 

 

And all those 5000 yards, what has he accomplished in his career? Nothing. Oh and btw do you know who was leading the league in passing yards before he got hurt? Yup Dak.

[Indyfan4life 839]

5 hours ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

I watched him and he was a fence post out there that couldn't move at all. He has always put up numbers but he never won anything. We went 11-5 in spite of Rivers not because of him. We lost to Buffalo because we were completely outcoached. I will agree Rivers was better than I thought but he was nothing like Brady was for Tampa Bay....

If you think Rivers had nothing to do with this team's success, then you're blind, and being a Rivers hater for no reason.

[Thebrashandthebold 122]

46 minutes ago, Indyfan4life said:

If you think Rivers had nothing to do with this team's success, then you're blind, and being a Rivers hater for no reason.

I have never liked River's game even in his best years. Great stats no marquis wins.

[Indyfan4life 839]

20 minutes ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

I have never liked River's game even in his best years. Great stats no marquis wins.

Because Rivers plays defense, special teams, running back and WR, right? So many years his team failed him. That's not really his fault.

[Beardog 29]

11 hours ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

I watched him and he was a fence post out there that couldn't move at all. He has always put up numbers but he never won anything. We went 11-5 in spite of Rivers not because of him. We lost to Buffalo because we were completely outcoached. I will agree Rivers was better than I thought but he was nothing like Brady was for Tampa Bay....

I’ll give Brady credit his arm still looks good in spite of his age compared to Brees and Rivers.  But I’m sorry right now you/we wish we had Rivers.  
 

Do you really think any QB brought in honestly gets the Colts better than 11-5 next year?  If so I’ve got some swamp land to sell you!

[2006Coltsbestever 22,331]

18 minutes ago, Beardog said:

I’ll give Brady credit his arm still looks good in spite of his age compared to Brees and Rivers.  But I’m sorry right now you/we wish we had Rivers.  
 

Do you really think any QB brought in honestly gets the Colts better than 11-5 next year?  If so I’ve got some swamp land to sell you!

Realistically maybe Stafford could get us to 11-5 and Watson would, other than that you are right 

[SpanosSucks 192]

13 hours ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

I watched him and he was a fence post out there that couldn't move at all. He has always put up numbers but he never won anything. We went 11-5 in spite of Rivers not because of him. We lost to Buffalo because we were completely outcoached. I will agree Rivers was better than I thought but he was nothing like Brady was for Tampa Bay....

Brady was throwing to Evan’s, Godwin, AB, and Gronk.  Arguably the best WR weapons in the NFL.  Who was Rivers throwing to?

[Beardog 29]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Realistically maybe Stafford could get us to 11-5 and Watson would, other than that you are right 

My point is I don’t think people really appreciated Rivers and we will next year.  I doubt we get Stafford and I’m not convinced he’s better really.  11-5 with these receivers was pretty good.  Watching Phil for a while he was always going to have you in the game.

 

Would be nice having someone that’s more mobile and just hoping it’s not Brissett

[SpanosSucks 192]

7 hours ago, Indyfan4life said:

Because Rivers plays defense, special teams, running back and WR, right? So many years his team failed him. That's not really his fault.

People who have never actually watched him think this way.  Terrible defenses & terrible run games since 2010.  Terrible coaches. 
 

06 - Mcree fumbled a game ending INT

 07 - Torn ACL against a 16-0 team

08 - an 8-8 team that knocked off the 12-4 colts

09 - Kaeding missed 3 * FG

13 - coach calls nothing but running plays against the most high powered offense in the NFL.  Rivers gets them within 7.  Defense let’s Manning convert a 3rd and 18

18 - Defense allows 35 points in first half

[danlhart87 8,628]

Sees the title:

Notices a Prescott vs Stafford debate 

 

[2006Coltsbestever 22,331]

5 hours ago, Beardog said:

My point is I don’t think people really appreciated Rivers and we will next year.  I doubt we get Stafford and I’m not convinced he’s better really.  11-5 with these receivers was pretty good.  Watching Phil for a while he was always going to have you in the game.

 

Would be nice having someone that’s more mobile and just hoping it’s not Brissett

Oh Rivers was good. I was for the signing from the beginning. I wish he would come back for 1 more year. I get your point, I was just pointing 2 QB's that could or would take us to 11-5 but that is not many which was my point.

[Beardog 29]

23 hours ago, SpanosSucks said:

People who have never actually watched him think this way.  Terrible defenses & terrible run games since 2010.  Terrible coaches. 
 

06 - Mcree fumbled a game ending INT

 07 - Torn ACL against a 16-0 team

08 - an 8-8 team that knocked off the 12-4 colts

09 - Kaeding missed 3 * FG

13 - coach calls nothing but running plays against the most high powered offense in the NFL.  Rivers gets them within 7.  Defense let’s Manning convert a 3rd and 18

18 - Defense allows 35 points in first half

2006 game against the Pats they really won that game three times:  Mcree interception and fumble, Parker punt return fumble inside 10 and three and out late and I think Merriman late hits Brady all of which would have sealed the game 

[Thebrashandthebold 122]

On 1/21/2021 at 11:42 PM, SpanosSucks said:

Brady was throwing to Evan’s, Godwin, AB, and Gronk.  Arguably the best WR weapons in the NFL.  Who was Rivers throwing to?

I agree with that and I have said many times that this was not a true NFL receiving core. Brady was better than Rivers on the worst day he ever had. No comparison at all. One was a winner. The other has never won anything.

 

 

[NewColtsFan 9,255]

On 1/17/2021 at 7:47 PM, CR91 said:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/nfl/news/colts-tom-brady-philip-rivers/ija7iqui6i4n18vvjdppqstb4

Not sure you realize your link does NOT say what you claim it does. 
 

The link says Brady had interest in the Colts.

 

What it does NOT say is that the Colts were his top choice.  It doesn’t even hint or imply that.   Just that he had interest.  That’s not the same as being his top choice. 

[CR91 6,937]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

Not sure you realize your link does NOT say what you claim it does. 
 

The link says Brady had interest in the Colts.

 

What it does NOT say is that the Colts were his top choice.  It doesn’t even hint or imply that.   Just that he had interest.  That’s not the same as being his top choice. 

 

Did you read the bottom?

[NewColtsFan 9,255]

25 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Did you read the bottom?

Yes.   I don’t know what you’re referring to?  You’ll have to be more specific. 

[CR91 6,937]

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Yes.   I don’t know what you’re referring to?  You’ll have to be more specific. 

 

It said the two wanted to work out a deal, but they couldn't agree on the contract terms and length

[NewColtsFan 9,255]

12 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

It said the two wanted to work out a deal, but they couldn't agree on the contract terms and length

Where?   Where did it say that?  
 

I’ve looked for a third time now and still don’t see what you posted. 

[CR91 6,937]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

Where?   Where did it say that?  

 

Read between the lines. Colts wanted a shorter deal. Brady wanted two years and probably control over certain roster moves. They couldn't come to an agreement.