Colts pushed Rivers out the door?

[Beardog]

6 hours ago, smittywerb said:

Pushed out the door = "Hey Phillip, we believe you did a good job but we're going to move on from you."

 

This is being blown out of proportion.  The reality is that Phil isn't going to get it done.  Good team and heart guy but a noodle arm, bad toe, and statue like pocket presence isn't going to get us far in the playoffs.

I do agree with this but he got you 11-4 and he played well this year.  I recall as a Chargers fan being excited about Leaf over Manning because of his arm strength so I don’t get overly enamored with arm - also see Dwayne Haskins.  Mobility was more frustrating IMO and will be exciting having someone more mobile.

 

 

 

 

[Dogg63]

3 hours ago, Beardog said:

As a Rivers fan I wondered the same but he’s been consistent about giving it thought after the season.  I also think the foot had something to do with it as I understood he played through a lot of pain at the end.  Teammates said this but he’s not the kind of guy that would talk about it.   I’m kinda happy it was him that quickly made the decision and not team.  

I can't help but wonder if he was reviewing the 2020 season and saw another replay of this tackle attempt and realized The Time To Retire might have arrived earlier than he'd thought...

 

 

    

[smittywerb]

16 hours ago, Beardog said:

I do agree with this but he got you 11-4 and he played well this year.  I recall as a Chargers fan being excited about Leaf over Manning because of his arm strength so I don’t get overly enamored with arm - also see Dwayne Haskins.  Mobility was more frustrating IMO and will be exciting having someone more mobile.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, he did get us to 11-4 but he's not the future.  And right now we have to take the opportunity that we have now to get someone who's going to be here for the next 5 years.  In the NFL, you don't get many chances to get a QB.  We miss this opportunity to get Stafford or someone else and we might not see another opportunity like this for a while.  I mean look at the situation now.  Luck has been retired for how long, and we're still talking about getting a QB.

[Duke_Of_NY_A_Number_1]

Being that Phil has admitted to reading and/or watching people discuss him once before, maybe he decided to lurk around on these boards to see if the fans even wanted him back for another year - read that they wanted to move on from him, thus (contributing) to his rather quick decision to hang it up. 

[Smoke317]

When you look deeper at the numbers (though they were pretty decent) Rivers just couldn’t beat the better teams in the AFC.  And he definitely couldn’t beat them when we had a run/pass ratio of 40/60.  So Frank pulled Rivers for Jacoby on a 2nd & 11 in week 17 because he said “he really wanted to run the ball”.  Guess Rivers had a pension for checking out of called runs and going pass happy.  Rivers was clearly upset about the decision.  
 

The future HoF QB probably felt he’d earned the right to do it his way like Sinatra.  Despite the stats showing we couldn’t win against the better teams with Rivers carrying the team, he decided to go out slanging the ball around the field vs the Bills in the playoffs.  Granted he played a damn good game (but he had 2 critical missed throws).  And guess what happened?  We lost once again to another AFC contender. 
 

Men lie, women lie, numbers don’t.  The numbers showed Rivers couldn’t carry the team vs the better teams.  I believe the fact that he was unwilling to accept that fact and adjust his game accordingly lead to us declining to bring him back.  We could have won the Super Bowl this year with a heavy emphasis on the run game and Rivers throwing it no more than 30 times.  That wasn’t meant to be.  Rivers went out his way.  Good stats and an early playoff exit.  

[Lancer1]

18 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Men lie, women lie, numbers don’t.  The numbers showed Rivers couldn’t carry the team vs the better teams.  I believe the fact that he was unwilling to accept that fact and adjust his game accordingly lead to us declining to bring him back.  We could have won the Super Bowl this year with a heavy emphasis on the run game and Rivers throwing it no more than 30 times.  That wasn’t meant to be.  Rivers went out his way.  Good stats and an early playoff exit.  

This suggests that opposing teams are going to just let you run the ball at will - defensive coordinators, especially ones in the playoffs will always try to take away what you you do best, and make you try to beat them another way. When you play against Baltimore, you try to keep Lamar Jackson from running freely and if he's gonna win, you make sure he does it with his arm and not this legs. When You're playing the Titans, you try to somewhat contain Derrick Henry and keep Tannehill in the pocket, and make him beat you with his arm if he can. 

 

If allowed to run predominantly, the Colts could conceivably beat any team they play but most teams won't allow you to do that if they can help it. With the lack of a running game, many teams are toast with no chance to win but Rivers also gave us a chance to win every game he played in.  No matter who the Colts have under center next season, and however physically gifted they are, there will be times in which the absence of Philip Rivers is felt, especially his mental ability.

[Beardog]

24 minutes ago, Lancer1 said:

This suggests that opposing teams are going to just let you run the ball at will - defensive coordinators, especially ones in the playoffs will always try to take away what you you do best, and make you try to beat them another way. When you play against Baltimore, you try to keep Lamar Jackson from running freely and if he's gonna win, you make sure he does it with his arm and not this legs. When You're playing the Titans, you try to somewhat contain Derrick Henry and keep Tannehill in the pocket, and make him beat you with his arm if he can. 

 

If allowed to run predominantly, the Colts could conceivably beat any team they play but most teams won't allow you to do that if they can help it. With the lack of a running game, many teams are toast with no chance to win but Rivers also gave us a chance to win every game he played in.  No matter who the Colts have under center next season, and however physically gifted they are, there will be times in which the absence of Philip Rivers is felt, especially his mental ability.

I couldn’t agree more here.  So many assumptions here that Rivers is consistently checking out of runs, etc.  Better quote, liars use statistics and statistics lie.  I was originally thinking last year’s team being compared to Elways late Broncos team with Terrell Davis in trying to have Rivers do less and run the ball more.  I can be critical of Rivers but he’s amazing at reading Defenses something we WILL miss next year.  We had a good running game but I’m sorry we never ran the ball at will.  Where Rivers can get into trouble is when he’s having to do too much and basically asked to win the games.  That didn’t really happen last year but let’s not assume he consistently checked out of runs.  I also don’t assume he was shown the door.  I hope we have a better qb next year but I’ll believe it when I see it when we improve on 11-4

[Lancer1]

3 minutes ago, Beardog said:

I couldn’t agree more here.  So many assumptions here that Rivers is consistently checking out of runs, etc.  Better quote, liars use statistics and statistics lie.  I was originally thinking last year’s team being compared to Elways late Broncos team with Terrell Davis in trying to have Rivers do less and run the ball more.  I can be critical of Rivers but he’s amazing at reading Defenses something we WILL miss next year.  We had a good running game but I’m sorry we never ran the ball at will.  Where Rivers can get into trouble is when he’s having to do too much and basically asked to win the games.  That didn’t really happen last year but let’s not assume he consistently checked out of runs.  I also don’t assume he was shown the door.  I hope we have a better qb next year but I’ll believe it when I see it when we improve on 11-4

I agree with your assumption that Philip probably wasn't shown the door, but rather chose to walk - to push him out without already having secured his replacement would be the height of stupidity, and I don't believe that about our GM. Things don't always go as planned, as evidenced by when Josh McDaniels agreed to become the Colts' next Head Coach, and then suddenly changed his mind.

[EastStreet]

On 1/28/2021 at 8:48 AM, John Waylon said:

Doesn’t that just make it seem more likely that we made the decision though? Is Phil the kind of guy that would walk away from a team that could conceivably go on a deep playoff run to coach a high school team? I have a hard time believing he’d make this decision with that specifically in mind. That job is going to be there for him in 2022. Or whenever he wants to take it full time. It’s not Saban ready to hand over the reigns at Alabama to him. 
 

I just find it strange that Phil made the choice to walk away still having a legitimate chance to make one last postseason run. 

I think Ballard told him we were going in a different direction. 

That quote was taken from when he was named coach in waiting before the season.

But back to the original point, I don't see him going to the booth. I see him coaching. Sure he might pop in when he's not coaching, but the HS will be his priority along with his kids.

[Lancer1]

12 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I think Ballard told him we were going in a different direction. 

That quote was taken from when he was named coach in waiting before the season.

But back to the original point, I don't see him going to the booth. I see him coaching. Sure he might pop in when he's not coaching, but the HS will be his priority along with his kids.

As I mentioned before, this would be monumentally stupid on Ballard's part without having a viable replacement for Philip already in the fold, and it would appear that he does not yet.

[colts89]

Reich and many members of  the team said they wanted him back. He already had a job lined up as a coach and the toe injury probably didn't help. I would have been fine with him staying one more year, but he probably thought it was just time.

[w87r]

25 minutes ago, Lancer1 said:

As I mentioned before, this would be monumentally stupid on Ballard's part without having a viable replacement for Philip already in the fold, and it would appear that he does not yet.

which is why, imo, this theory is nonsense.

 

Ballard is extremely smart and wouldn't back himself into a corner like that.

 

Rivers called it a career on his own volition.

[zibby43]

56 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I think Ballard told him we were going in a different direction. 

Absolutely correct.  And I’m not saying that just for fun lol.  
 

This allowed Rivers to manage the announcement on his own terms.  The organization itself will never confirm this, because it defeats the purpose of Rivers being afforded the ability to appear like he’s going out on his own terms.    
 

Rivers was out of Indiana the day the news broke.  He and the family took off quickly.

 

Ballard has a plan in place for QB, but I’ll admit that’s something I have zero intel on.  Radio silence.  

[EastStreet]

40 minutes ago, Lancer1 said:

As I mentioned before, this would be monumentally stupid on Ballard's part without having a viable replacement for Philip already in the fold, and it would appear that he does not yet.

IMO, Ballard has a plan, and has a high level of confidence of the plan. I'm sure he has a pretty clear decision tree of options. 

 

I could be wrong, but I'd bet we see something happen with pretty quick, and if we don't, we'll see a QB in the draft. Personally, I think it's going to be Stafford, and I'd guess FOs may have even already outlined an agreement.

[Lancer1]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

IMO, Ballard has a plan, and has a high level of confidence of the plan. I'm sure he has a pretty clear decision tree of options. 

 

I could be wrong, but I'd bet we see something happen with pretty quick, and if we don't, we'll see a QB in the draft. Personally, I think it's going to be Stafford, and I'd guess FOs may have even already outlined an agreement.

To quote the late Harold Ramis in Stripes, “Great! Custer had a plan.”

 

If Ballard’s plan is to go from Philip to any rookie quarterback from this year’s draft, then as previously mentioned it would be the height of stupidity – I seriously doubt if that was the case.

 

If the plan was to acquire another veteran QB, I maintain that unless he already had a concrete agreement in place with that person's organization, then pushing a Canton-bound quarterback who still has gas in his tank out the door on the hopes that you could “get your guy” would be foolish at best. In reality, doing it before actually acquiring said veteran QB would still not be very wise, because as also previously mentioned, Indianapolis already had an agreement in place on contract terms with Josh McDaniels to be their Head Coach, but it never came to pass.

[EastStreet]

23 minutes ago, Lancer1 said:

To quote the late Harold Ramis in Stripes, “Great! Custer had a plan.”

 

If Ballard’s plan is to go from Philip to any rookie quarterback from this year’s draft, then as previously mentioned it would be the height of stupidity – I seriously doubt if that was the case.

 

If the plan was to acquire another veteran QB, I maintain that unless he already had a concrete agreement in place with that person's organization, then pushing a Canton-bound quarterback who still has gas in his tank out the door on the hopes that you could “get your guy” would be foolish at best. In reality, doing it before actually acquiring said veteran QB would still not be very wise, because as also previously mentioned, Indianapolis already had an agreement in place on contract terms with Josh McDaniels to be their Head Coach, but it never came to pass.

I doubt they are going to draft a QB, but if they did draft a guy like Lance or Wilson, I'm not necessarily a guy who'd want to see them sit for a year. We have the OL to allow for a rook starter. Again, don't see that as the case, but would be OK if it were.

 

I think all the timing around Dodds interview with Detroit, the Rivers retirement announcement, etc. are all interesting. I wouldn't be shocked if Indy already has an agreement in place with Detroit, especially if Indy is Stafford's favorite. And early agreement helps both teams maneuver better. Only risk is if another team comes along to drive up the price.

[w87r]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

I think all the timing around Dodds interview with Detroit, the Rivers retirement announcement, etc. are all interesting

It is interesting, I could see Stafford being brought up in conversation with Dobbs, then he comes back and says he is potentially available. I still don't see Ballard telling Rivers to retire. Would be something he could ponder on, but to force his hand and back himself into a corner like that just doesn't make sense and just isn't something I see him doing.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

It is interesting, I could see Stafford being brought up in conversation with Dobbs, then he comes back and says he is potentially available. I still don't see Ballard telling Rivers to retire. Would be something he could ponder on, but to force his hand and back himself into a corner like that just doesn't make sense and just isn't something I see him doing.

[EastStreet]

24 minutes ago, w87r said:

It is interesting, I could see Stafford being brought up in conversation with Dobbs, then he comes back and says he is potentially available. I still don't see Ballard telling Rivers to retire. Would be something he could ponder on, but to force his hand and back himself into a corner like that just doesn't make sense and just isn't something I see him doing.

I think there's just too much pointing to the Colts moving on. Ballard could have said "we want Philip back, and we're going to give him time", but he made a point to say the Colts were going to weigh their options. I just don't see Rivers making that quick of decision. I can see Dodds going to Detroit and finding out about Stafford, then coming back, telling Ballard, and Ballard immediately picks up the phone and calls Detroit. If Ballard indeed was determined to go after Stafford, I think he'd tell Rivers (so as not to string him along). It might not have been "Philip, we're moving on", but it could have been "Matthew is our first option, and you're our plan B"... And Philip just said see ya, of course in a nice way.

[w87r]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

I just don't see Rivers making that quick of decision.

Maybe?

 

He sounded like he was leaning that way(retiring/reflective) after Bills game.

 

Some times it's better to come to a decision and make the call rather than dwell on it.

 

He could've made his decision and that was it, didn't want to possibly change his mind later.

 

He doesn't seem like the type of guy that would just be told the team was moving on and take it on the chin.

 

If that was the case and he really wanted to play, there would of been an opening for him somewhere.

 

 

Now something I could see, was the conversation about what we might be able to pay him and he figured he would just rather hang it up. Saying that though, I don't think that topic of conversation had come up yet.

[PrincetonTiger]

11 minutes ago, w87r said:

Maybe?

 

He sounded like he was leaning that way(retiring/reflective) after Bills game.

 

Some times it's better to come to a decision and make the call rather than dwell on it.

 

He could've made his decision and that was it, didn't want to possibly change his mind later.

 

He doesn't seem like the type of guy that would just be told the team was moving on and take it on the chin.

 

If that was the case and he really wanted to play, there would of been an opening for him somewhere.

 

 

Now something I could see, was the conversation about what we might be able to pay him and he figured he would just rather hang it up. Saying that though, I don't think that topic of conversation had come up yet.

My parents had to make this decision    
   My Dad had to make multiple decisions like this when you figure in his coaching duties

[EastStreet]

18 minutes ago, w87r said:

Maybe?

 

He sounded like he was leaning that way(retiring/reflective) after Bills game.

 

Some times it's better to come to a decision and make the call rather than dwell on it.

 

He could've made his decision and that was it, didn't want to possibly change his mind later.

 

He doesn't seem like the type of guy that would just be told the team was moving on and take it on the chin.

 

If that was the case and he really wanted to play, there would of been an opening for him somewhere.

 

 

Now something I could see, was the conversation about what we might be able to pay him and he figured he would just rather hang it up. Saying that though, I don't think that topic of conversation had come up yet.

I don't think pay would be an issue for us. I also didn't really see him as sounding like he wanted to retire. But who knows. I can see Ballard being overly honest with him (about his plans to pursue Stafford). It's not something you string a guy like Rivers on with. He also made it pretty clear he wasn't going to play anywhere else. The lack of announcement by PR also points me in the same direction. 

[Smoke317]

10 hours ago, Lancer1 said:

This suggests that opposing teams are going to just let you run the ball at will - defensive coordinators, especially ones in the playoffs will always try to take away what you you do best, and make you try to beat them another way. When you play against Baltimore, you try to keep Lamar Jackson from running freely and if he's gonna win, you make sure he does it with his arm and not this legs. When You're playing the Titans, you try to somewhat contain Derrick Henry and keep Tannehill in the pocket, and make him beat you with his arm if he can. 

 

If allowed to run predominantly, the Colts could conceivably beat any team they play but most teams won't allow you to do that if they can help it. With the lack of a running game, many teams are toast with no chance to win but Rivers also gave us a chance to win every game he played in.  No matter who the Colts have under center next season, and however physically gifted they are, there will be times in which the absence of Philip Rivers is felt, especially his mental ability.

Good post. And I can’t argue with your last sentence. Rivers will most certainly be missed. We haven’t seen a field general with his command at the line of scrimmage here in Indy since Peyton.  
 

Give Rivers a hint of mobility and the ability to fluidly navigate the pocket and just a few more rpm’s on his fastball and deep ball and we’re still playing this season. 
 

I see why people want Stafford because he has all those things that I said Rivers was lacking. But I don’t think he has the command at the line of scrimmage like Rivers.  And I fear that the title of greatest Lions QB who couldn’t win a playoff game be just be his story. 

But maybe the book isn’t fully written on Stafford and Frank & Ballard can put the right team around him to elevate his game to a higher level?  

 

I fear a slight regression from Rivers to Stafford. He may actually win an extra game or 2 against better competition but he’ll lose 2-3 more games against bad to average teams we shouldn’t lose.

[Beardog]

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I think there's just too much pointing to the Colts moving on. Ballard could have said "we want Philip back, and we're going to give him time", but he made a point to say the Colts were going to weigh their options. I just don't see Rivers making that quick of decision. I can see Dodds going to Detroit and finding out about Stafford, then coming back, telling Ballard, and Ballard immediately picks up the phone and calls Detroit. If Ballard indeed was determined to go after Stafford, I think he'd tell Rivers (so as not to string him along). It might not have been "Philip, we're moving on", but it could have been "Matthew is our first option, and you're our plan B"... And Philip just said see ya, of course in a nice way.

Couple of things that defy logic with what you said:

 

- Ballard telling Rivers hey we’re gonna go after Stafford and your plan B?  Huh?  Rivers played well, got them 11-4 and I’m sorry is realistically a better QB than Stafford ( despite Stafford being younger)but he’s never done anything in his entire career 

- Rivers is the type that is very, very competitive and ONLY wants super bowl or bust and would rather leave if he thinks he can’t compete, help the team and he doesn’t need the freaking money ( he’s not Brett Farve ego wise)

- the foot injury obviously bothered him 

- he only wanted to play for the Colts and you can second guess him when another QB gets us to 11-4 next year 

 

[Beardog]

1 hour ago, Smoke317 said:

Good post. And I can’t argue with your last sentence. Rivers will most certainly be missed. We haven’t seen a field general with his command at the line of scrimmage here in Indy since Peyton.  
 

Give Rivers a hint of mobility and the ability to fluidly navigate the pocket and just a few more rpm’s on his fastball and deep ball and we’re still playing this season. 
 

I see why people want Stafford because he has all those things that I said Rivers was lacking. But I don’t think he has the command at the line of scrimmage like Rivers.  And I fear that the title of greatest Lions QB who couldn’t win a playoff game be just be his story. 

But maybe the book isn’t fully written on Stafford and Frank & Ballard can put the right team around him to elevate his game to a higher level?  

 

I fear a slight regression from Rivers to Stafford. He may actually win an extra game or 2 against better competition but he’ll lose 2-3 more games against bad to average teams we shouldn’t lose.

Totally agree with this.  Hoping Stafford gets us over the top and he’s a great qb loved him coming out of GA.  He’s a little more mobile and has a good arm but chemistry takes a while.  Ideally he should be the guy but call me when he gets us to 11-4 and I’ll get excited.  This team still needs to improve this off-season - not just at QB

[NewColtsFan]

8 minutes ago, Beardog said:

Totally agree with this.  Hoping Stafford gets us over the top and he’s a great qb loved him coming out of GA.  He’s a little more mobile and has a good arm but chemistry takes a while.  Ideally he should be the guy but call me when he gets us to 11-4 and I’ll get excited.  This team still needs to improve this off-season - not just at QB

Sorry...   having read a couple of you’re posts, I’ve seen the same mistake at least 3 times, so it’s not a typo.    11-4.

 

In a 16 game schedule, it’s either 12-4 or 11-5.   But it’s not 11-4.

 

And next year, it looks like the NFL is going to a 17 game schedule, so the math will change. 

[EastStreet]

6 hours ago, Beardog said:

Couple of things that defy logic with what you said:

 

- Ballard telling Rivers hey we’re gonna go after Stafford and your plan B?  Huh?  Rivers played well, got them 11-4 and I’m sorry is realistically a better QB than Stafford ( despite Stafford being younger)but he’s never done anything in his entire career 

- Rivers is the type that is very, very competitive and ONLY wants super bowl or bust and would rather leave if he thinks he can’t compete, help the team and he doesn’t need the freaking money ( he’s not Brett Farve ego wise)

- the foot injury obviously bothered him 

- he only wanted to play for the Colts and you can second guess him when another QB gets us to 11-4 next year 

 

I'm a fan of Rivers, and not second guessing him.

 

Doubt the foot injury had much to do with things unless it required a more serious type of surgery and a long recovery.

 

Rivers vs Stafford, in terms of who is better, is very debatable. Even more when you factor age and point in career. Both have played with poor supporting casts. I'd say that at least Rivers had some good years here and there with good support. Rivers has a high sack %, but if you can believe it, Stafford's is even higher due to the bad OLs he's had. I would have loved to have PR one more year, but if you choose PR for one year vs 5 or more with Stafford, I'd would think that's very shortsighted. 

[CR91]

This makes things more interesting rather this is true or not with Stafford now off the market

[w87r]

16 minutes ago, CR91 said:

This makes things more interesting rather this is true or not with Stafford now off the market

Not really, just the same non substantiated claim it was before.

[CR91]

4 minutes ago, w87r said:

Not really, just the same non substantiated claim it was before.

 

Maybe, but if it is true and the colts did want to move on with Stafford before having a "handshake" deal, it makes them look bad moving on without having an alternative option unless their blowing smoke and do trust Eason.

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, w87r said:

Not really, just the same non substantiated claim it was before.

Yes...   there really isn’t any concrete evidence.   Just connecting dots, and some circumstantial evidences.   Some people will choose to believe it.   Others won’t.   I don’t begrudge anyone no matter which way they think on this one.   

[The Fish]

This story will probably be known one way or the other, in a few years while Rivers is trying to make small talk during a broadcast and no one really cares anymore.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I tend to believe Rivers wasn’t going to wait around for the colts to go over their options. He wanted to have a clear path forward quickly.

[w87r]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Maybe, but if it is true and the colts did want to move on with Stafford before having a "handshake" deal, it makes them look bad moving on without having an alternative option unless their blowing smoke and do trust Eason.

That's a narrative than can be pushed, but makes no sense in actuality. Something we are likely to never know anyway. So speculation really doesn't matter unless there is an ulterior motive against Ballard to make him look bad.

 

Ballard just isn't the type to pigeonhole himself like that. 

 

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Yes...   there really isn’t any concrete evidence.   Just connecting dots, and some circumstantial evidences.   Some people will choose to believe it.   Others won’t.   I don’t begrudge anyone no matter which way they think on this one.   

I'm not judging anyone on it,  but speculating on it is meaningless, unless there is an ulterior motive against Ballard.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Maybe, but if it is true and the colts did want to move on with Stafford before having a "handshake" deal, it makes them look bad moving on without having an alternative option unless their blowing smoke and do trust Eason.

Looking bad in who's eyes?

Who said that Ballard had any serious thoughts about Stafford? Just because the media was pounding that scenario does not make it true? 

We all know that Ballard is tight lipped when it comes to his plans. We normally don't know anything till it's already done. 

 

[CR91]

8 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Looking bad in who's eyes?

Who said that Ballard had any serious thoughts about Stafford? Just because the media was pounding that scenario does not make it true? 

We all know that Ballard is tight lipped when it comes to his plans. We normally don't know anything till it's already done. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, w87r said:

That's a narrative than can be pushed, but makes no sense in actuality. Something we are likely to never know anyway. So speculation really doesn't matter unless there is an ulterior motive against Ballard to make him look bad.

 

Ballard just isn't the type to pigeonhole himself like that.

 

I'm not saying I was a fan of bringing Rivers back, but Rivers has gone on record to say he will either re-sign with the colts or retire. I don't know if Stafford being available interested the colts or not, but it's hard to not think the two are connected. Bottom line, the colts are at a crossroads and the season is not even over yet.

[w87r]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Yes...   there really isn’t any concrete evidence.   Just connecting dots, and some circumstantial evidences.   Some people will choose to believe it.   Others won’t.   I don’t begrudge anyone no matter which way they think on this one.   

And just to touch base on this a little more.

 

 

This was connecting dots by the same online expert journalist that said deal is done with Colts, oh wait the deal is done with the 49ers. Nvm, Colts name hasn't surfaced at all, wait, yeah the Colts and 9era are front runners. Niners have deal in place for (2) 2nds and (2) 3rds.

 

Nope...nope Panthers and Washington are if he stays east.

 

 

Just saying, cant believe everything someone post online. 

 

Deal in place for (2) 2nds and (2) 3rds is far off from Goff, (2) 1st and (1) 3rd.(as you've stated Lions will eventually get something else from Goff if they move on from him)

 

Cal me when Rivers or Ballard states he was forced out.(not directed toward you NCF, just anyone who wants to push the narrative)

[The Fish]

14 minutes ago, w87r said:

That's a narrative than can be pushed, but makes no sense in actuality. Something we are likely to never know anyway. So speculation really doesn't matter unless there is an ulterior motive against Ballard to make him look bad.

 

Ballard just isn't the type to pigeonhole himself like that. 

 

I'm not judging anyone on it,  but speculating on it is meaningless, unless there is an ulterior motive against Ballard.

Ulterior motive against? That's kinda strong...

 

I mean, if it did happen where Ballard said the team was moving on and he gets stranded so to speak in QB no man's land, that's not an above critique outcome, but we're not there yet.

 

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

 

I'm not saying I was a fan of bringing Rivers back, but Rivers has gone on record to say he will either re-sign with the colts or retire. I don't know if Stafford being available interested the colts or not, but it's hard to not think the two are connected. Bottom line, the colts are at a crossroads and the season is not even over yet.

The only connection that Rivers had with Stafford was Stafford was the next thought up when Rivers retired.

Maybe Rivers was just ready after giving a shot with the Colts. After all he just signed a 1 year contract only with talk of a 2nd year. 

I agree we are at a crossroad but Ballard will earn his money.

[w87r]

Just now, The Fish said:

Ulterior motive against? That's kinda strong...

 

I mean, if it did happen where Ballard said the team was moving on and he gets stranded so to speak in QB no man's land, that's not above critique outcome, but we're not there yet.

 

IF it did happen, it isn't above critique.

 

 

That's a big IF, there is no facts to back it up. Just some online sleuths trying to connect the dots and be the smart guy.(not anyone here, just those on the twitter verse that made this a thing anyway.)

 

Bottomline is at this point, if someone is trying to bash Ballard for this, they do have an ulterior motive against him and just trying to make hik look bad. The facts are not there to prove it.

 

 

Will they surface 1 day? Maybe? I wouldn't be holding my breath counting on it.

 

 

Also, if Ballard told Rivers he wanted to evaluate things before coming to a decision and give Rivers time decide what he wants to do, but Rivers didn't want that to be the case. That isn't Ballard forcing him out either.

 

 

That is Ballard doing what he should do.