Matthew Stafford (merge)

[shasta519]

5 minutes ago, Sumo63 said:

If the colts were truly a top 3 landing spot they could have landed him.  It just "costs" and Ballard seems reluctant to "pay".  Better than average Qbs are going to require a premium.  Picking in the teen to twenties isn't going to get it done. 

 

Again I acknowledge Ballard knows WAY more than I do.  I'm just speaking from the outside looking in.

There were a lot of factors at play. But I agree with the overall idea that Ballard appears reluctant to pay a premium. And if I don’t even really agree with the reasoning either...that it would set the franchise back years if they miss. As if Irsay would fire him. But more importantly, what is the alternative? Churn out fringe playoff teams with some vet QB. No thanks to that. 

 

Teams have to be aggressive to get a QB...it’s not a unique challenge. 

[zibby43]

51 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Maybe they will deal him to the colts if we dont get Wentz? 

 

I don't think we want a contract that was literally so awful that the Rams had to give up 2 first round picks to unload it.

 

0.0% chance of that happening. 

[Sumo63]

6 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

The Texans aren’t going to trade Watson within the division.

 

This is the year fans want Ballard to make a bold move and go get a QB.  Ballard has already said he doesn’t see it that way and said why.  He knows if he gets it wrong he’s getting fired.  So he’s not going to go all in on a QB just because he needs one.  He’s going to look for the right one and that may or may not be this year.  He’s also not going to pay a king’s ransom for one.  That’s just not who Ballard is.  
 

Fans don’t like this because we have gotten used to Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck and naturally want another one, who doesn’t?  We also want to win a Super Bowl every year and we have luxury of getting to use 20/20 hindsight on every move and never have to worry about losing our jobs or our status as fans if the moves we want don’t work out.  
 

I said from the start this was going to require patience and it still does.  What last year showed was if the Colts get good QB play they will be a very good team because of their power running game and their defense.  They don’t have to have a franchise QB to win, don’t get me wrong it would make things a lot easier, but this team isn’t built like it was for Manning or Luck where it was get on their back and we will go as far as they can carry us.  
 

They need a solid option.  I am sure Ballard is looking for one but the price has to be right because he’s not going to mortgage the future to try to win a Super Bowl in the next year or two and then fall apart because all their players got old or left and they had no draft picks to replace them.  He’s trying to build a sustained winning team that can compete for Super Bowls for the next ten years.  

He also has a lot of other holes to fill, not the least of which is the starting left tackle spot, so he’s not going to trade away all his draft picks for a QB when he has no other picks to put players around his QB.  

 

So again, as hard as this is, we need to stay patient.  We know the Colts aren’t going to go into next year with just Eason on the roster at QB.  So sooner or later he will do something.  Be prepared though it might be another bridge guy like Rivers was if he can’t find the right guy or the price is just too high.  Ballard is going to wait for the right guy at the right price.  People like to say in Ballard I trust.  Nows the time to show you mean it.  

We stay patient, I get it.  He's half a decade in tho.  Whether he, or we, like it it's time for him to define his tenure.

 

Hes built a super bowl quality roster but seems paralyzed in committing to a mid to long term solution at the helm.

 

Hes got to commit and hes got to accept that there is a cost associated with that decision.  Trade up and be three years away (the edge of our window)  or acquire a quality qb with 5 years of quality play left in him.  That was Stafford and hes playing in LA. 

 

I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing how Ballard addresses it.

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

14 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

It only proves your point if teams think he is a good QB. How do you not understand that?  And how far the price gets driven, once again, is determined by how the teams that are interested in Darnold value him,  what the base offers are, and how much impulse control the GM of the interested team has. 

 

There is a low supply of good and great QB's. There is a very low supply of young, good to great QB's.

 

There is not a low supply of QB's in general. And not a low supply of young QB's in general. 

 

I don't think that all opinions are equal; you just come across as if your opinion is the authority. Your posts are overly abrasive and condescending and you take the forum too seriously. It makes for toxic discussion. 

 

 

And now you have already admitted that he may not go for a first lol. 

No.   You continue to misinterpret what I say.  
 

I never claimed Darnold would bring a 1.    
 

I was responding to ANOTHER POSTER who said they didn’t think the Jets would not get 1.   My only claim was that the Jets will get more than a single 2.   That they would get multiple picks for Darnold.   That’s it. 
 

As for the everything else...   you don’t like me or my posting style...  You’re not the first to say this.  But I’m still here.   So, if I bother you so much, feel free to put me on ignore.   Your life will be better and you’ll be happier if you simply ignore me.    Fair enough?

 

Good luck. 

[EastStreet]

8 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

I am a finance guy, I very much understand the time devaluation of money.  Similarly, I understand that a pick now is, in theory, worth more than a pick tomorrow.  BUT, no matter how you look at it, Rams have very much hurt their ability to add premium players.  And you can’t use the ‘ol do diddly with the picks argument, for that applies whether the pick is today, tomorrow, or the day after.   Rams just got fleeced!  I suppose if Stafford balls out and makes them truly a perennial SB contender, one can argue that the price was worth it, but man, in my book of value, Rams got fleeced and Lions made out like bandits.  I am really disappointed that the Colts didn’t get Stafford, but with that asking price, I personally would have zero interest.  To me, just a bad, BAD organizational move by the Rams.  I think they’ve killed themselves with this move, looking beyond the next 2 years. 

Since you're a finance guy I would expect you would agree that the Rams REALLY wanted to get rid of Goff. That says a lot on it's own. 

 

Given the contract implications for both, I think it was dumb. Simple as that. Rams have dead cap and draft issues for years. Detroit has a bad contract and a bad roster with extra picks in a franchise nobody really wants to go to. They might compete with the current roster but their current and next year's roster is troublesome.  

 

If you disagree, tell me why. Let me know how either's 2 or 3 year plan is successful. All I'll say is Rams better win next year. Detroit will be a joke for at least 2-3 years. If the Lions come out of this on top, I'll be really surprised. 

 

 

[a06cc]

Only giving up one first round pick for any of this QB’s in question for availability. Mortgaging out picks can set a franchise back. I’m fine in seeing what we have in Eason or JB. I’m okay with draft a guy if that’s the plan. They will do what’s necessary. Now I’m personally hope we fix the defense. We need a CB, DE, and DT.

CB: We fail to maintain coverage against mobile QB’s

DE: This plays into coverage. If we’re going to rush with only our front 4 we need consistent pressure. 
DT: We seen what happened when Buckner when down. Don’t care if that was against Queen Henryetta. We still need quality depth there. 

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, Sumo63 said:

We stay patient, I get it.  He's half a decade in tho.  Whether he, or we, like it it's time for him to define his tenure.

 

Hes built a super bowl quality roster but seems paralyzed in committing to a mid to long term solution at the helm.

 

Hes got to commit and hes got to accept that there is a cost associated with that decision.  Trade up and be three years away (the edge of our window)  or acquire a quality qb with 5 years of quality play left in him.  That was Stafford and hes playing in LA. 

 

I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing how Ballard addresses it.

 

 

Okay three of the four years he’s been here he had Andrew Luck so let’s not pretend like he’s been looking for a QB the whole time he was here.  This is only his second off-season he’s been looking for a franchise QB.  
 

I am telling you if you listen to Ballard he doesn’t view it this way.  I get why fans do but I also get why a NFL GM doesn’t, Especially one that has lots of holes to fill.  

[Sumo63]

8 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

There were a lot of factors at play. But I agree with the overall idea that Ballard appears reluctant to pay a premium. And if I don’t even really agree with the reasoning either...that it would set the franchise back years if they miss. As if Irsay would fire him. But more importantly, what is the alternative? Churn out fringe playoff teams with some vet QB. No thanks to that. 

 

Teams have to be aggressive to get a QB...it’s not a unique challenge. 

I love Ballard.  I love what hes done and I think a multi year vet ala Stafford could have gotten us there.  Rivers could have if not for a few unfortunate coaching decisions.....

 

I'm still excited to see what happens but. He needs to commit imo or the window will close with the colts being a fringe playoff team.  That would be a shame.

[Sumo63]

3 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Okay three of the four years he’s been here he had Andrew Luck so let’s not pretend like he’s been looking for a QB the whole time he was here.  This is only his second off-season he’s been looking for a franchise QB.  
 

I am telling you if you listen to Ballard he doesn’t view it this way.  I get why fans do but I also get why a NFL GM doesn’t, Especially one that has lots of holes to fill.  

I get it.  He, and you, can view it any way you want. The reality is luck is gone, brissett isnt good enough, rivers packed it in.....the rest of the roster is ready now.  Do the math......its time to make a play.

 

I'm not bashing him, I think hes awesome.  Hes saved a team that, in lesser hands, would have been in free fall.

 

He righted the ship but it means nothing if he cant solidify the most important  position now.  The window wont be open long.  If hes a HOF gm hes gotta take a risk, and he has to be right.  Sorry, but that's the job he accepted 

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, Sumo63 said:

We stay patient, I get it.  He's half a decade in tho.  Whether he, or we, like it it's time for him to define his tenure.

 

Hes built a super bowl quality roster but seems paralyzed in committing to a mid to long term solution at the helm.

 

Hes got to commit and hes got to accept that there is a cost associated with that decision.  Trade up and be three years away (the edge of our window)  or acquire a quality qb with 5 years of quality play left in him.  That was Stafford and hes playing in LA. 

 

I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing how Ballard addresses it.

 

 

Sorry, but this is hugely misleading.   Ballard had a franchise level quarterback until 17 months ago.  He’s not the least bit paralyzed. That’s a fan’s perspective.   He’s patient.  Too many GM’s are desperate.  Ballard is not. 
 

Strikes me Ballard is well aware of the cost.  He openly talks about it.   But he also noted the high mis-rate on quarterbacks, and with the cost involved.  Trade too much and miss, and you set the franchise back years.  It’s not as simple and straight forward as you make it sound.  
 

Seems to me Ballard has already defined his tenure.  You, yourself said it.   He’s built a playoff caliber roster quickly.  He’s looking for the most important piece — quarterback.  But it comes at the same time he has to fill the 2nd most important piece — LT.   And the 3rd, RDE,  and the 4th, CB1.  And the 5th, WR1....   and on and on.  You can argue about the preference order, but you csnt about needing all those pieces. 
 

It’s not just get a quarterback and we’re going to the Super Bowl.  There are a ton of moving pieces to address this offseason. 

[colts89]

1 minute ago, Sumo63 said:

I love Ballard.  I love what hes done and I think a multi year vet ala Stafford could have gotten us there.  Rivers could have if not for a few unfortunate coaching decisions.....

 

I'm still excited to see what happens but. He needs to commit imo or the window will close with the colts being a fringe playoff team.  That would be a shame.

The Colts window isn't close to closing though imo. All of our best players are relatively young, and we have cap space still to pick up

blue chip free agents as needed. Ballard and his scout team has also shown a knack of being excellent at evaluating talent in the draft for a few years now, and I expect that to continue.

 

The Rams are more in the need to win now/window closing mode with the amount of draft picks traded and cap space they have invested in the short term. Makes sense why they would give up that much for Stafford in that aspect. If they don't win the SB again in a two year span, that window will be shut.

 

[Sumo63]

Just now, colts89 said:

The Colts window isn't close to closing though imo. All of our best players are relatively young, and we have cap space still to pick up

blue chip free agents as needed. Ballard and his scout team has also shown a knack of being excellent at evaluating talent in the draft for a few years now, and I expect that to continue.

 

The Rams are more in the need to win now/window closing mode with the amount of draft picks traded and cap space they have invested in the short term. Makes sense why they would give up that much for Stafford in that aspect. If they don't win the SB again in a two year span, that window will be shut.

 

5 years to me is close.  A rookie is most likely 3 years away from being close to peak play.  Even if hes the right pick its cutting it close.

[EastStreet]

35 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

That someone in the Lions org was the LAR’s director of college scouting for the past decade (including when Goff got drafted. Once the LAR entered the mix...I had a feeling Stafford to the Colts was dead.

 

Boom. I'd like to know who was the guy behind the Goff pick.

[krunk]

Wentz and Winston both have turnover issues. Fix that and youve got pretty good QB to win some games with. Winston has been immature but i dont think hes a bad guy. Maybe hes grown some. Havent seen anything bad lately. I still remember how he carved us up down in Tampa. He does have great leadership qualities in terms of rallying guys around him. I like his Moxie, but i hate the turnovers.

[WoolMagnet]

Let these teams overpay for these QBs and then we pick up a guy who drops in the draft due to teams grabbing FAs?

Just crazy how some teams give away the farm.  I think Ballard would spend the dough and/or draft capital (Buckner) for the right fit, but thank goodness he won’t do a deal like Detroit got.  Imagine if Stafford doesnt live up to the investment.  Big contract AND the loss of basically 3 first round picks, and a third.

[GoColts8818]

23 minutes ago, Sumo63 said:

I get it.  He, and you, can view it any way you want. The reality is luck is gone, brissett isnt good enough, rivers packed it in.....the rest of the roster is ready now.  Do the math......its time to make a play.

 

I'm not bashing him, I think hes awesome.  Hes saved a team that, in lesser hands, would have been in free fall.

 

He righted the ship but it means nothing if he cant solidify the most important  position now.  The window wont be open long.  If hes a HOF gm hes gotta take a risk, and he has to be right.  Sorry, but that's the job he accepted 

I think the roster is close but they have some major holes beyond the QB spot.  AC retired so he needs a new LT.  It was clear last year the ends need a major upgrade.  He also may lose his number one WR and CB to free agency.  He also probably needs another starting LB and TE.  That’s a lot.  The Colts are not just a QB away.  They are also going to have to use a large amount of their cap space to keep guys like Leonard, Smith, and, Nelson in the next year or two.  So that’s why he’s not going to trade away all his picks.  Pretty soon it’s going to be the only real way he can address holes.  
 

Ballard is trying to build a team that has more than a two or three year window and since most of his core players are on rookie deals or getting ready to go into second deals that’s the right approach, build a team that can compete for the next 10 years not take two or three shots and then fall apart.

 

Also if there is sure fire way to shut a window it’s spend a lot of capitol on a QB just because you need one and get it wrong.  That’s what Ballard is trying to avoid.  Once he finds the guy he thinks is the guy he will probably be willing to spend more than he normally would to try to go get them.  What he’s not going to do though is way over pay just because they need someone because he knows the chance of failure with that is very high and that’s the kind of move that sets your team back five to ten years at least.
 

 There seems to be a lot of panic tonight because the Colts didn’t get Stafford.  I can promise you the one person who isn’t panicked is Ballard.  I am sure he’s known for a little while that he wasn’t getting Stafford and has moved on to his next plan of action.  So again, let’s be patient and wait and see what his plan is.  

If we love Ballard then we should trust that he’s going to put a capable QB under center next year.  We just have to wait and see who it is and how they get him.  

[Tsarquise]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

No.   You continue to misinterpret what I say.  
 

I never claimed Darnold would bring a 1.    
 

I was responding to ANOTHER POSTER who said they didn’t think the Jets would not get 1.   My only claim was that the Jets will get more than a single 2.   That they would get multiple picks for Darnold.   That’s it. 
 

As for the everything else...   you don’t like me or my posting style...  You’re not the first to say this.  But I’m still here.   So, if I bother you so much, feel free to put me on ignore.   Your life will be better and you’ll be happier if you simply ignore me.    Fair enough?

 

Good luck. 

Nah, you don't bother me that much. Your posts are actually mildly entertaining. Especially when you talk as if you are the arbiter of the forum and the football world. 

 

But, you're right, you did not say he should fetch a 1. It is just that you think that he would go for more than just a second, based off of the idea of supply and demand. 

 

But, like I said, supply and demand only applies to good QB's, which Darnold is seemingly not at this moment. Based off is his past play, Darnold's demand would not lead one to believe that it is high. He is playing like a backup. 

 

AND the way you presented your belief was as if it was a verifiable fact. 

 

Hey, maybe we should trade Eason for a second, plus more!  QB is in high demand! Maybe we should have traded Chad Kelly? Colts really missed out on that. We definitely missed out on dealing Brissett.

 

49ers really fleeced the Pats on Garrapolo when all they gave up was a Second round pick. 

[Sumo63]

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

I think the roster is close but they have some major holes beyond the QB spot.  AC retired so he needs a new LT.  It was clear last year the ends need a major upgrade.  He also may lose his number one WR and CB to free agency.  He also probably needs another starting LB and TE.  That’s a lot.  The Colts are not just a QB away.  They are also going to have to use a large amount of their cap space to keep guys like Leonard, Smith, and, Nelson in the next year or two.  So that’s why he’s not going to trade away all his picks.  Pretty soon it’s going to be the only real way he can address holes.  
 

Ballard is trying to build a team that has more than a two or three year window and since most of his core players are on rookie deals or getting ready to go into second deals that’s the right approach, build a team that can compete for the next 10 years not take two or three shots and then fall apart.

 

Also if there is sure fire way to shut a window it’s spend a lot of capitol on a QB just because you need one and get it wrong.  That’s what Ballard is trying to avoid.  Once he finds the guy he thinks is the guy he will probably be willing to spend more than he normally would to try to go get them.  What he’s not going to do though is way over pay just because they need someone because he knows the chance of failure with that is very high and that’s the kind of move that sets your team back five to ten years at least.
 

 There seems to be a lot of panic tonight because the Colts didn’t get Stafford.  I can promise you the one person who isn’t panicked is Ballard.  I am sure he’s known for a little while that he wasn’t getting Stafford and has moved on to his next plan of action.  So again, let’s be patient and wait and see what his plan is.  
 

If we love Ballard then we should trust that he’s going to put a capable QB under center next year.  We just have to wait and see who it is and how they get him.  

I agree with everything you said.  Every team has holes tho.  I believe that this year the colts were a superbowl qualit team.

 

I'm just on the side of paying for Stafford who gives you 5 years minimum of high quality play would have been worth a couple (presumably late) 1st round picks.

 

Ballard seems to like the value in the 2nd-4th anyway.  Were primarily on the same page tho.  Just my opinion.

[GoColts8818]

23 minutes ago, Sumo63 said:

Man u guys are sensitive......

Disagreeing with you and saying why doesn’t make people sensitive also pointing out it’s misleading to say Ballard has been here nearly half a decade and still hasn’t landed a franchise QB without mentioning he had Andrew Luck as the planned starter three of the four off-seasons he’s been here doesn’t make people sensitive.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

Well Stafford is out, now what? Anyone have suggestions? If we don't get Watson now or if Luck doesn't come back we are screwed. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Nah, you don't bother me that much. Your posts are actually mildly entertaining. Especially when you talk as if you are the arbiter of the forum and the football world. 

 

But, you're right, you did not say he should fetch a 1. It is just that you think that he would go for more than just a second, based off of the idea of supply and demand. 

 

But, like I said, supply and demand only applies to good QB's, which Darnold is seemingly not at this moment. Based off is his past play, Darnold's demand would not lead one to believe that it is high. He is playing like a backup. 

 

AND the way you presented your belief was as if it was a verifiable fact. 

 

Hey, maybe we should trade Eason for a second, plus more!  QB is in high demand! Maybe we should have traded Chad Kelly? Colts really missed out on that. We definitely missed out on dealing Brissett.

 

49ers really fleeced the Pats on Garrapolo when all they gave up was a Second round pick. 

You really should block me.  I really do annoy you.   Sorry, don’t mean to, but this post makes it clear I rub you the wrong way.  
 

If you want to stick around for the “entertainment value” knock yourself out.  But if you’re going to take shots at me, don’t be surprised if I take one of two approaches with you.   Either respond in a way you won’t like, or I won’t respond at all.   Your call.   I don’t much care. 
 

Good luck. 

[EastStreet]

20 minutes ago, Sumo63 said:

I personally dont care what the lions do on the back end. Although my best friend is a lions fan.  Who was going to convert if we landed Stafford. (We went to opening day at Lucas oil in 16).

 

Colts need a solid qb with multiple years left in him.  Jumping from bandaid to bandaid just closes our window.  

 

We dont need a superstar, I think Rivers proved that, our failings were mostly coaching this year. we just need multi year stability and solid play. 

I agree that most of our failings were coaching. I think both our O and D could have been better. I think we had the personnel to play more man and rush/stunt more on D, and I think we could could have been much more aggressive on O. Folks think we have bad pass catchers but the stats suggest we simply put a governor on Rivers. At the end of day our O stood up. and our pass D didn't. Folks that want to suggest the opposite need to bring facts. I agree we don't need a star, but we do need better than JB.

[MarquisJ]

Anything but Jameis, Jacoby & Wentz rather try my luck trading up for Lance and signing a vet behind with Eason to compete 

[GoColts8818]

Just now, Sumo63 said:

I agree with everything you said.  Every team has holes tho.  I believe that this year the colts were a superbowl qualit team.

 

I'm just on the side of paying for Stafford who gives you 5 years minimum of high quality play would have been worth a couple (presumably late) 1st round picks.

 

Ballard seems to like the value in the 2nd-4th anyway.  Were primarily on the same page tho.  Just my opinion.

Maybe he gives you five years.  He’s had a lot of injuries in Detroit and as we’ve seen with QBs injuries add up fast.  That could play into Ballard’s decision.

 

That’s if Ballard had a decision.  It’s coming out that Stafford wanted to go to LA and the Lions and Rams felt this was the deal that made the most people happy.  Ballard may have gone all in and offered four first round Picks, a second, Leonard, and Nelson (I am being extreme on purpose) but if the Lions were trying to do what made Stafford the happiest it might not have mattered what Ballard offered.  

[Sumo63]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I agree that most of our failings were coaching. I think both our O and D could have been better. I think we had the personnel to play more man and rush/stunt more on D, and I think we could could have been much more aggressive on O. Folks think we have bad pass catchers but the stats suggest we simply put a governor on Rivers. At the end of day our O stood up. and our pass D didn't. Folks that want to suggest the opposite need to bring facts. I agree we don't need a star, but we do need better than JB.

You got it man.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I love JB but he is an 8-8 starter, great backup but not getting us to a SB. Luck or Watson are the only 2 IMO that could do it.

[GoColts8818]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Well Stafford is out, now what? Anyone have suggestions? If we don't get Watson now or if Luck doesn't come back we are screwed. 

Nah, Ballard has a plan, and probably some contingency plans, that I can promise you.  Last year proved this team can win with good QB play they don’t have to have elite QB play.  

[EastStreet]

23 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Sorry, but this is hugely misleading.   Ballard had a franchise level quarterback until 17 months ago.  He’s not the least bit paralyzed. That’s a fan’s perspective.   He’s patient.  Too many GM’s are desperate.  Ballard is not. 
 

Strikes me Ballard is well aware of the cost.  He openly talks about it.   But he also noted the high mis-rate on quarterbacks, and with the cost involved.  Trade too much and miss, and you set the franchise back years.  It’s not as simple and straight forward as you make it sound.  
 

Seems to me Ballard has already defined his tenure.  You, yourself said it.   He’s built a playoff caliber roster quickly.  He’s looking for the most important piece — quarterback.  But it comes at the same time he has to fill the 2nd most important piece — LT.   And the 3rd, RDE,  and the 4th, CB1.  And the 5th, WR1....   and on and on.  You can argue about the preference order, but you csnt about needing all those pieces. 
 

It’s not just get a quarterback and we’re going to the Super Bowl.  There are a ton of moving pieces to address this offseason. 

Ballard has been QB deficient.  We get it. He have a lot of FA holes. We get it. It's holes he created though as he is, in charge. And for a few years. I have pretty good confidence in him filling the holes as they are pretty easy to put back together. The QB situation stands alone though. 

 

That said, without getting into nitty gritty (which you know I'm happy to do), we're a pass D and a QB that close.

 

And I think both are possibly coaching if we simply land a decent QB. 

[stitches]

5 hours ago, w87r said:

thats fine, it makes for good healthy discussion.

 

I maybe giving him to much credit, but I was a little surprised by this answer, tbh, and feel even more like you are underselling his impact.

 

There is obviously other contributing factors, but his presence elevated everyone's game and his intensity was/is still contagious.

 

Our RG and RT eventually got ironed out, but it was a few games in and after we decided we had to move Smith from Guard to Tackle and ot started to pay huge dividends Scheme change helped but most important factor was the addition of Q. Helped change the mentality of not only the OL, but the whole team, IMO.

We were bottom 5 OL in the league the first 5 games of the 2018 season when AC was injured and Braden was still not starting at RT. The whole unit came together and into shape when all of them started together. This was much more than the effort of Nelson. There was a concentrated effort to make that unit into at least passable one the whole off-season. With that said - absolutely, Q is the best part of that line. Still ... I'd trade any position on the field for a chance at a franchise QB we like in the draft, including Q. It won't make me happy to do it and I will do it with the full acknowledgement of what we are losing... but still ... QB>>>>LG any day of the week. Now, if you can do it for a reasonable price without giving him up, of course that's the preferable option, but if that's the only way to do it, I'd do it. 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

Nah, Ballard has a plan, and probably some contingency plans, that I can promise you.  Last year proved this team can win with good QB play they don’t have to have elite QB play.  

I hope so, maybe Luck is coming back? Sounds silly but who knows.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, Sumo63 said:

You got it man.

Bring the facts my brother.

[GoColts8818]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I love JB but he is an 8-8 starter, great backup but not getting us to a SB. Luck or Watson are the only 2 IMO that could do it.

If Jacoby’s back it’s because he’s a bridge to a rookie.  Patience.  That’s what this process is going to require.  We aren’t going to know tonight so let’s not panic.  The Colts have a good GM and people around here talk about how they trust him.  Nows the time to show it.  

[Sumo63]

2 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Maybe he gives you five years.  He’s had a lot of injuries in Detroit and as we’ve seen with QBs injuries add up fast.  That could play into Ballard’s decision.

 

That’s if Ballard had a decision.  It’s coming out that Stafford wanted to go to LA and the Lions and Rams felt this was the deal that made the most people happy.  Ballard may have gone all in and offered four first round Picks, a second, Leonard, and Nelson (I am being extreme on purpose) but if the Lions were trying to do what made Stafford the happiest it might not have mattered what Ballard offered.  

Well said.  Stafford isnt fragile tho.  Hes been dinged up but I think all (8?) Of his missed games were in the same year.  I could be wrong, picking nits at this point tho.  I cant argue with your sentiment.

[EastStreet]

Just now, stitches said:

We were bottom 5 OL in the league the first 5 games of the 2018 season when AC was injured and Braden was still not starting at RT. The whole unit came together and into shape when all of them started together. This was much more than the effort of Nelson. There was a concentrated effort to make that unit into at least passable one the whole off-season. With that said - absolutely, Q is the best part of that line. Still ... I'd trade any position on the field for a chance at a franchise QB we like in the draft, including Q. It won't make me happy to do it and I will do it with the full acknowledgement of what we are losing... but still ... QB>>>>LG any day of the week. 

The whole OL was in flux tho. You have to give a ton of credit to the OL coach. I don't know how may combos we had till week 6ish. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

If Jacoby’s back it’s because he’s a bridge to a rookie.  Patience.  That’s what this process is going to require.  We aren’t going to know tonight so let’s not panic.  The Colts have a good GM and people around here talk about how they trust him.  Nows the time to show it.  

I always preach patience, JB is a great leader but is a 50/50 QB, good talent but 8-8 in reality. We might re-sign him, who knows?

[stitches]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Ballard is off the hook, IMO. Wouldn't have wanted to do two firsts, plus they're giving up Goff. We couldn't/shouldn't match this offer.

IMO it's possible they consider Goff a negative contract in this deal. I wonder if he is available now? Would we even want to consider him? His contract is much worse than Stafford's. If they are ready to give him up as a salary dump for a 5th... do you do it?

 

For the record, I'm not Goff's biggest fan... and I wouldn't do that. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, stitches said:

IMO it's possible they consider Goff a negative contract in this deal. I wonder if he is available now? Would we even want to consider him? His contract is worse than Staffords? If they are ready to give him up for a 3d... do you do it?

 

For the record, I'm not Goff's biggest fan... and I wouldn't do that. 

My 3 options now would be go all in for Watson as in trading our 1st rounder this year, in 2022, and 2023, or trying to convince Luck to comeback, or trading our 1st round pick this year and next years 1st round pick  and move up to get Lance. 

[GoColts8818]

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I always preach patience, JB is a great leader but is a 50/50 QB, good talent but 8-8 in reality. We might re-sign him, who knows?

Exactly who knows.  Again, if they re-sign Jacoby I think it’s because they draft someone and need a vet to mentor him and Eason and start until the kid is ready which is probably a year at most.  I don’t think Jacoby is re-signed to be “the guy” going forward I just don’t.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

My 3 options now would be go all in for Watson as in trading our 1st rounder this year, in 2022, and 2023, or trying to convince Luck to comeback, or trading our 1st round pick this year and next years 1st round pick  and move up to get Lance. 

After that Stafford trade, IMO the price for Watson will be insane. It will be like nothing we've seen before... if they even budge on trading him. It seems like they will be trying to convince him to stay. No idea if they succeed. 

[stitches]

15 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

The whole OL was in flux tho. You have to give a ton of credit to the OL coach. I don't know how may combos we had till week 6ish. 

True... but yeah. My point was - it wasn't Q singlehandedly making this OL great. It was improvements throughout the whole line. We changed 3 starters between 2017 and 2018. We changed coaches, we changed playcallers from ones favoring Air Coryell type of offense to ones favoring quick passing game , we changed Brissett with Luck...