Poll - QB Preference (now that PR has officially retired) (merge)

[dw49]

46 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I wouldn't trust BALT trading Brown.  If they think he is only a RT, then he probably is.  I would feel more comfortable about them trading their LT.  That would indicate that they think Brown is simply better, so they move their current LT to accommodate.  In that scenario, they are not saying that their current LT is bad...they just want to keep the better LT of the two.

 

They just signed Ronnie Stanley to 5 years at 20 mill per year. Brown played LT and played it well when Stanley went on IR. He's in his contract year and considers himself a LT. So Balt has the option of keeping a disgruntled Brown for 1 year or getting some compensation for him this year. No way they are going to pay him LT money to play RT , so their in a bit of a pickle. 

My point is I don't necessarily agree with your assessment that Balt thinks he is only a RT. Could be true I guess but there is plenty of film (10 games)  of him at LT for teams to determine that. 

[DougDew]

Current rumor is that Both Trask and Jones are thought of as second round picks.  So those of you wanting a trade up, we may only have to trade up to the early second. keeping pick 21.

 

But both are clearly better than Eason?

[The Fish]

12 minutes ago, holeymoley99 said:

Trade for Derek Carr, Raiders already have Mariota ready to be plugged in. Carr is young enough at 30 when season starts to be around another 7-8 seasons. Coming off highest QB rating of his career. Would likely cost a 1st this year and 2 nd and possibly 3rd next.

That's horrible. A first. A second and third for a guy who's very, very average.

 

This is why JB being the starter (or Eason) is alive and well. The options aren't so dang good, that you pencil in a soild season. And why pay out the nose to be mediocre?

[life long]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Current rumor is that Both Trask and Jones are thought of as second round picks.  So those of you wanting a trade up, we may only have to trade up to the early second. keeping pick 21.

Id take either in the 2nd if available. 

[Moosejawcolt]

4 minutes ago, life long said:

Id take either in the 2nd if available. 

Question. Do u think the Colts r going to compete with the Mahommes, Allans and Herbert's of the world? They have set the bar and to compete with them u r are going to have to habe a dynamic qb. Just my thoughts

[Moosejawcolt]

On 1/27/2021 at 7:09 PM, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I think they move on from Tua also. Rumor was they started him early in season was to take a good look at him with so many QB's in the draft.

And I don't think they liked what they seen. I know I didn't lol.

 

Well I know squat bout football and I didn't like what I saw in Tua. I am sure the Dolphins have their concerns

[life long]

Just now, Moosejawcolt said:

Question. Do u think the Colts r going to compete with the Mahommes, Allans and Herbert's of the world? They have set the bar and to compete with them u r are going to have to habe a dynamic qb. Just my thoughts

I think many on this board focus too much on dynamic or mobile qbs. I think with solid defense, special teams and a balanced offense we can win with a solid QB. Has Brady, Manning, or Brees ever been considered dynamic? Maybe mentally but as far as physical gifts I'd much rather a guy who throws with anticipation,  moves in the pocket and reads defenses well. Over a guy who can scramble around or break a 30yd run a game. 

 

To be clear those QBs you mentioned are great but unnecessary in the grand scheme of winning games. We have a solid OL and RB group. Let's pound the rock and play smart hard nosed FB.

[life long]

7 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Question. Do u think the Colts r going to compete with the Mahommes, Allans and Herbert's of the world? They have set the bar and to compete with them u r are going to have to habe a dynamic qb. Just my thoughts

And we competed just fine against Allen without a dynamic QB. We hung with KC last season albeit with a hobbled Mahomes and no Hill. Herbert though? We can probably beat the chargers with a rookie Jones or Trask. Probably could beat them with JB or Eason too. 

[aaron11]

21 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But both are clearly better than Eason?

How would any of us know?  Its going to be a strange draft with little to go by, and we still have not seen much of anything from Eason 

[holeymoley99]

19 minutes ago, The Fish said:

That's horrible. A first. A second and third for a guy who's very, very average.

 

This is why JB being the starter (or Eason) is alive and well. The options aren't so dang good, that you pencil in a soild season. And why pay out the nose to be mediocre?

Carr is far from average, he is better numbers wise than Stafford by quite a bit and much younger. Higher completion %, much better td/int ratio, many fewer sacks per game. Not as big an arm and had better supporting class but if Stafford drew that haul it tells you market value is high right now.  

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CarrDe02.htm

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StafMa00.htm

[The Fish]

Just now, holeymoley99 said:

Carr is far from average, he is better numbers wise than Stafford by quite a bit and much younger. Higher completion %, much better td/int ratio, many fewer sacks per game. Not as big an arm and had better supporting class but if Stafford drew that haul it tells you market value is high right now.  

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CarrDe02.htm

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StafMa00.htm

 

Carr is far from average?

Nope. That's exactly what he is.

 

Unfortunately for us, there's an argument for it now.

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

How would any of us know?  Its going to be a strange draft with little to go by, and we still have not seen much of anything from Eason 

I don't understand the logic of using capital on a rookie QB when we have Eason.  Eason is 6.6 235 and has a strong arm.  

 

The strategy should be to build the team, fill the holes, and let the fog clear up around Eason before you make a major splash at QB.  

 

Sign a FA, or give minor capital to wrestle away somebody else, but don't invest a lot of capital to have two young QBs when you don't really know what either of them will do.

[aaron11]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I don't understand the logic of using capital on a rookie QB when we have Eason.  Eason is 6.6 235 and has a strong arm.  

 

The strategy should be to build the team, fill the holes, and let the fog clear up around Eason before you make a major splash at QB.  

 

Sign a FA, or give minor capital to wrestle away somebody else, but don't double down on young QBs when you don't really know what either of them will do.

i dont think Jacob is the answer tbh.  Yeah hes already here, but he didnt his college career didnt scream nfl starter and what have we seen since then?

[Moosejawcolt]

16 minutes ago, life long said:

I think many on this board focus too much on dynamic or mobile qbs. I think with solid defense, special teams and a balanced offense we can win with a solid QB. Has Brady, Manning, or Brees ever been considered dynamic? Maybe mentally but as far as physical gifts I'd much rather a guy who throws with anticipation,  moves in the pocket and reads defenses well. Over a guy who can scramble around or break a 30yd run a game. 

 

To be clear those QBs you mentioned are great but unnecessary in the grand scheme of winning games. We have a solid OL and RB group. Let's pound the rock and play smart hard nosed FB.

I agree some what. Those 3 were dynamic mentally. I think the game is changing and coordinators aren't stubborn like they use to be. They are taking advantage of the young qbs and there athleticism and raw traits. Therefore, expanding  the playbook and what these offences can do in the red zone. They bring a whole different dimension to the offence.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

18 minutes ago, life long said:

I think many on this board focus too much on dynamic or mobile qbs. I think with solid defense, special teams and a balanced offense we can win with a solid QB. Has Brady, Manning, or Brees ever been considered dynamic? Maybe mentally but as far as physical gifts I'd much rather a guy who throws with anticipation,  moves in the pocket and reads defenses well. Over a guy who can scramble around or break a 30yd run a game. 

 

To be clear those QBs you mentioned are great but unnecessary in the grand scheme of winning games. We have a solid OL and RB group. Let's pound the rock and play smart hard nosed FB.

Your not winning with just A solid QB  with all the young QB in the AFC. Your QB is going to have to win some games on their own. There is no margin of error when you only have a solid QB.

[colts89]

If we dont trade, Fitzmagic might be the guy for next season. I think he can put up similar production that PR did for us. Ballard really values draft picks, and if the QB market is that high as set by the Stafford trade, Fitzmagic can be had for similar value to most QBs we could trade for now without losing capital.

[holeymoley99]

3 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Carr is far from average?

Nope. That's exactly what he is.

 

Unfortunately for us, there's an argument for it now.

4,000 yard seasons while compiling 3-1 td to int ratio is average ?   11th in league in TD and 11th in yardage this past season in Las Vegas...top 3rd of league....I'll take it...

[The Fish]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

i dont think Jacob is the answer tbh.  Yeah hes already here, but he didnt his college career didnt scream nfl starter and what have we seen since then?

The Packers took Love in the first based on his ball.. Eason's looked way more pro show imo..

 

The rest of it? We dunno and that's probably in Eason's favor.

[BlueSince87]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't understand the logic of using capital on a rookie QB when we have Eason.  Eason is 6.6 235 and has a strong arm.  

 

The strategy should be to build the team, fill the holes, and let the fog clear up around Eason before you make a major splash at QB.  

 

Sign a FA, or give minor capital to wrestle away somebody else, but don't double down on young QBs when you don't really know what either of them will do.

I just dont think Eason is the future. Next years draft class is unimpressive. We're built to win NOW, and need to find the QB that will help us do it. Whether it's trading for someone with at least 5 years left, or drafting him. 

[The Fish]

Just now, holeymoley99 said:

4,000 yard seasons while compiling 3-1 td to int ratio is average ?   11th in league in TD and 11th in yardage this past season in Las Vegas...top 3rd of league....I'll take it...

 

See, these numbers aren't wildly dissimilar to what Rivers did, while not challenging any defenses over the top. This is largely the same stuff. Safe, quick passes that are scheme derived. It's not Carr being especially special- he's okay. If we make a list of starters in the NFL, we're going to want more than half of them more than Carr is my basic math here. But again, you might be on to something here. Our options aren't awesome all of the sudden.

[Moosejawcolt]

19 minutes ago, life long said:

And we competed just fine against Allen without a dynamic QB. We hung with KC last season albeit with a hobbled Mahomes and no Hill. Herbert though? We can probably beat the chargers with a rookie Jones or Trask. Probably could beat them with JB or Eason too. 

Eason could b dynamic if he works out. He has s cannon of an arm and enough mobility to keep defences honest.

[life long]

9 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Your not winning with just A solid QB  with all the young QB in the AFC. Your QB is going to have to win some games on their own. There is no margin of error when you only have a solid QB.

Well IMO a solid QB should be able to win some games on his own. We wouldn't only have a solid QB to win games. We would pair him with top 10 units on all sides of the ball. Our biggest weakness is pass D. Even if we had Mahomes if we pair him with a crap defense we aren't winning any more than under my scenario. 

[holeymoley99]

Carr has mobility that Rivers doesnt have and would have the best O line of his career as well as the best rb he has ever played with. He has improved under Gruden and would be safe bet he would keep improving under Reich.  He isnt mahomes but he isnt Darnold or Wentz two broken QBs either.

[w87r]

5 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Eason could b dynamic if he works out. He has s cannon of an arm and enough mobility to keep defences honest.

I agree, if the option is young QB, I would rather give Eason a shot rather than trading more draft capital to move up and draft a guy, that potentially isn't any better than Eason, and maybe worse?

 

I will post some tiers of guys I would like to be looked at in a little bit. Im trying to get motivated to do something(trying to get my house on the market), just having trouble doing that this weekend.

[w87r]

2 minutes ago, holeymoley99 said:

Carr has mobility that Rivers doesnt have and would have the best O line of his career as well as the best rb he has ever played with. He has improved under Gruden and would be safe bet he would keep improving under Reich.  He isnt mahomes but he isnt Darnold or Wentz two broken QBs either.

He did beat Mahomes this year and gave them run for money in 2nd game.

 

 

Well "he beat" isn't really the truth, but the perception in the NFL is always QB vs QB.

[Moosejawcolt]

Just now, w87r said:

I agree, if the option is young QB, I would rather give Eason a shot rather than trading more draft capital to move up amd draft a guy, that potentially isn't any netter than Eason, and maybe worse?

 

I will post some tiers of guys I would like to be looked at in a little bit. Im trying to get motivated to do something(trying to get my house on the market), just having trouble doing that this weekend.

I dont see the Colts moving up in the draft unless say a Fields drops out of top 5 or so. It also depends on who is going after a qb. Miami, Jets, Detroit, Atlanta may not go after a qb. Carolina most likely will. 

[The Fish]

2 minutes ago, holeymoley99 said:

Carr has mobility that Rivers doesnt have and would have the best O line of his career as well as the best rb he has ever played with. He has improved under Gruden and would be safe bet he would keep improving under Reich.  He isnt mahomes but he isnt Darnold or Wentz two broken QBs either.

fair enough

 

I'll concede that it's probably close the best safe-ish bet left. But marrying Carr for years into the future is a long shot bet to produce titles or even deep playoff runs and I think that's not an insignificant part of the math that the team is using.

[RollerColt]

I think we’re in a position now where we basically have to see what Eason can do. We are hurting in major positions: LT, DE, CB, WR, TE... 

 

With our cap situation I have a feeling 2021 may be a wash. 

[life long]

13 minutes ago, colts89 said:

If we dont trade, Fitzmagic might be the guy for next season. I think he can put up similar production that PR did for us. Ballard really values draft picks, and if the QB market is that high, Fitzmagic can be had for similar value to most QBs we could trade for now without losing capital.

On one poll I chose Fitz but I'd also take Mac Jones. Get a real QB competition going and let the cards fall where they may.

[Restored]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't understand the logic of using capital on a rookie QB when we have Eason.  Eason is 6.6 235 and has a strong arm.  

 

The strategy should be to build the team, fill the holes, and let the fog clear up around Eason before you make a major splash at QB.  

 

Sign a FA, or give minor capital to wrestle away somebody else, but don't invest a lot of capital to have two young QBs when you don't really know what either of them will do.

 

I think there's a significant difference between a QB who you believe is truly a first round talent vs. one that is not. Eason was taken in the 4th round for a reason and taking a shot at a possibly better (albeit also young) QB is the best option.

 

Look at what Arizona did with Rosen/Murray. Many thought they already had a solid, young QB who was drafted in the top 10. Arizona saw an opportunity for a possibly even better QB and took it. Rosen has since bounced around and Murray appears to be their franchise QB of the future.

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i dont think Jacob is the answer tbh.  Yeah hes already here, but he didnt his college career didnt scream nfl starter and what have we seen since then?

Maybe not, but we don't need a Mahomes, Watson, Trevor, Fields, Wilson, or Lance.  Those are the guys that turn your team into "being about one guy"

 

We need Rivers with a stronger arm and ability to run for 3 yards and a FD.

 

Jones is just above 6.2.  Trask might be the best option.

[colts89]

Eason did make improvements throughout the season based on different interviews I've read. However, based on what I've read from Ballard and the rest of the team, he is still trying to get the NFL level footwork/mechanics/decision making down . I dont think the team believes he's ready for that starting spot. We all agree that the arm talent is there though.

[w87r]

Just now, Moosejawcolt said:

I dont see the Colts moving up in the draft unless say a Fields drops out of top 5 or so. It also depends on who is going after a qb. Miami, Jets, Detroit, Atlanta may not go after a qb. Carolina most likely will. 

Yeah, I personally am not really big on Fields, but for sure could be wrong.

 

I'm not even against drafting a QB, if one falls to us, or we could trade back from #21 and get a couple other picks and still take one.

 

Let the rookie and Eason battle it out, gives us 2 guys that may potentially work out to be our QB of the future. Increases the changes we would have an answer in house. If we do this though, I would rather not have a vet because that would just slow the development process. The 2 guys would need reps. 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

I think there's a significant difference between a QB who you believe is truly a first round talent vs. one that is not. Eason was taken in the 4th round for a reason and taking a shot at a possibly better (albeit also young) QB is the best option.

 

Look at what Arizona did with Rosen/Murray. Many thought they already had a solid, young QB who was drafted in the top 10. Arizona saw an opportunity for a possibly even better QB and took it. Rosen has since bounced around and Murray appears to be their franchise QB of the future.

The difference is that Rosen showed that he was NOT the guy.     

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Good thing Ballard drafted Eason or we wouldn’t have any QB Lol. People don’t realize if Eason had played one more year in college he very well might of went in the first round. He was pretty dynamic at GA as a freshman. The system at WA didn’t have the weapons like GA had.

[Moosejawcolt]

Just now, w87r said:

Yeah, I personally am not really big on Fields, but for sure could be wrong.

 

I'm not even against drafting a QB, if one falls to us, or we could trade back from #21 and get a couple other picks and still take one.

 

Let the rookie and Eason battle it out, gives us 2 guys that may potentially work out to be our QB of the future. Increases the changes we would have an answer in house. If we do this though, I would rather not have a vet because that would just slow the development process. The 2 guys would need reps. 

Now that Stafford is gone, the other vet qbsd who could b traded for are possibly Ryan, Darnold, Cousins and Carr. Just from the rumblings I am hearing. I would rather go with Eason and another rookie.

[Moosejawcolt]

1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

Good thing Ballard drafted Eason or we wouldn’t have any QB Lol. People don’t realize if Eason had played one more year in college he very well might of went in the first round. He was pretty dynamic at GA as a freshman. The system at WA didn’t have the weapons like GA had.

I am ready to gice him a shot unless Reich beleives he is a dud

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 minutes ago, w87r said:

Yeah, I personally am not really big on Fields, but for sure could be wrong.

 

I'm not even against drafting a QB, if one falls to us, or we could trade back from #21 and get a couple other picks and still take one.

 

Let the rookie and Eason battle it out, gives us 2 guys that may potentially work out to be our QB of the future. Increases the changes we would have an answer in house. If we do this though, I would rather not have a vet because that would just slow the development process. The 2 guys would need reps. 

If this is what they decide to do I would be down trying to get Darnold to compete with eason. More experience and still very young.  That might be a better option then a rookie. That gives you two guys so it increases our chances.

[danlhart87]

58 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Current rumor is that Both Trask and Jones are thought of as second round picks.  So those of you wanting a trade up, we may only have to trade up to the early second. keeping pick 21.

 

But both are clearly better than Eason?

I would trade down from 21 get and extra pick then select Jones

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I dont see the Colts moving up in the draft unless say a Fields drops out of top 5 or so. It also depends on who is going after a qb. Miami, Jets, Detroit, Atlanta may not go after a qb. Carolina most likely will. 

Washington too.  They are a playoff team and they want to keep it going.  They can use a first round pick on Trey Lance, win with Smith as long as he plays, and still build a better team.

 

ATL will definitely take a QB at 4 if they do not trade up with the Jets for the guy they want.