The Breer Report and what can we learn from it(if true)?

[stitches]

 

I was wondering if this deserves its own thread and  the more I thought about it, the more it seems like this has ramifications broader than the scope of our QB search so I decided to separate it from the other QB talk and I would love to hear people's thoughts on the report by Breer that the Colts did NOT include no.21 in the discussions for Stafford. The package we were willing to give up was other picks AND PLAYERS!!! 

 

So here we go now. What does that mean? Does it mean anything? For the Colts' plans for no. 21? For our roster? To me it looks like they probably have someone they really like at 21 and didn't want to give that pick away, because the simplest packages on our part start with that 21 pick and for them to not actually want it included in the package, it must mean something... Maybe they like the OT options that are likely to be available there? Or a DE? 

 

The other part is... there are players under contract that Ballard and the FO are willing to give up in their search for a QB. Who do you think those players are? They need to be under contract and they need to have some value to other teams. 

 

If they are willing to give them up for Stafford, are they willing to give them up in a trade up scenario in the draft for the QB of the future? I've mentioned a couple of times before that a scenario I can envision if we want to trade up in the top 5 for our future QB is one when we make 2 consecutive jumps, the first of which by trading a valuable player to get to around the top 10 range and then make another jump for the QB we actually like... Or does that go against the idea that they actually have someone they like at 21 who is likely not a QB(because we were saving 21 in a scenario where we got the QB through other means and resources- i.e. the proposed Stafford trade)? Who are the players you would be willing to give up for us to jump from 21 to about 10 range? 

 

What are your thoughts on that whole ordeal? 

[PrincetonTiger]

Sounds the new Lions Brain Trust wanted a Kings Ransom

 

[GoColts8818]

5 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Sounds the new Lions Brain Trust wanted a Kings Ransom

 

It’s come out Stafford wanted to go to LA and the Lions felt the trade with the Rams made the most people happy.  I think they were trying to do right by Stafford on the way out.

[csmopar]

26 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

I was wondering if this deserves its own thread and  the more I thought about it, the more it seems like this has ramifications broader than the scope of our QB search so I decided to separate it from the other QB talk and I would love to hear people's thoughts on the report by Breer that the Colts did NOT include no.21 in the discussions for Stafford. The package we were willing to give up was other picks AND PLAYERS!!! 

 

So here we go now. What does that mean? Does it mean anything? For the Colts' plans for no. 21? For our roster? To me it looks like they probably have someone they really like at 21 and didn't want to give that pick away, because the simplest packages on our part start with that 21 pick and for them to not actually want it included in the package, it must mean something... Maybe they like the OT options that are likely to be available there? Or a DE? 

 

The other part is... there are players under contract that Ballard and the FO are willing to give up in their search for a QB. Who do you think those players are? They need to be under contract and they need to have some value to other teams. 

 

If they are willing to give them up for Stafford, are they willing to give them up in a trade up scenario in the draft for the QB of the future? I've mentioned a couple of times before that a scenario I can envision if we want to trade up in the top 5 for our future QB is one when we make 2 consecutive jumps, the first of which by trading a valuable player to get to around the top 10 range and then make another jump for the QB we actually like... Or does that go against the idea that they actually have someone they like at 21 who is likely not a QB(because we were saving 21 in a scenario where we got the QB through other means and resources- i.e. the proposed Stafford trade)? Who are the players you would be willing to give up for us to jump from 21 to about 10 range? 

 

What are your thoughts on that whole ordeal? 

I’m just gonna say this, we will never know the actual offer we made. 

[DoubleE Colt]

What I take from it is just how many teams are on the QB trail this year.......there's going to be plenty of competition out there! 

[ReMeDy]

13 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I think they were trying to do right by Stafford on the way out.

 

::Meanwhile, in Houston::

Ownership: "DeShaun, if you don't shutup, we're trading you to the couch."

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, ReMeDy said:

 

::Meanwhile, in Houston::

Ownership: "DeShaun, if you don't shutup, we're trading you to the couch."

[adubb84]

It makes you think...I know that (based on previous moves) Ballard tends to error on the side of being shrewd with his personnel moves to get where we are right now. This may be exacerbated a bit this year as we have a glaring hole at QB that we haven’t solved for yet which from my POV will make or break his legacy pending on who we go with. Would folks be besides themselves if we traded away someone like Lenoard to get further up the draft but have the Face of the franchise at QB for years to come?

 

I think they liked Stafford but not enough due to the age and injury history and attempted to come in with a lowball and see what stuck. Got a feeling plan A was Stafford. Plan A2 was utilizing the 21st pick PLUS players to get into the top 5. 
 

I would still expect a cheap vet to come in to help have some experience in the room. Can’t roll with two rookies. 

[John Hammonds]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

The package we were willing to give up was other picks AND PLAYERS!!! 

OMG.  Ballard must have read my post about offering two 2nd round picks plus RYS and Banogu.

Doh.

[Zoltan]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

 

What are your thoughts on that whole ordeal? 

 

Makes me think that since they passed on the 8th pick the Lions like Goff as an answer to replace Stafford or they think the rams will crash and burn the next two seasons.

[stitches]

14 hours ago, adubb84 said:

It makes you think...I know that (based on previous moves) Ballard tends to error on the side of being shrewd with his personnel moves to get where we are right now. This may be exacerbated a bit this year as we have a glaring hole at QB that we haven’t solved for yet which from my POV will make or break his legacy pending on who we go with. Would folks be besides themselves if we traded away someone like Lenoard to get further up the draft but have the Face of the franchise at QB for years to come?

 

I think they liked Stafford but not enough due to the age and injury history and attempted to come in with a lowball and see what stuck. Got a feeling plan A was Stafford. Plan A2 was utilizing the 21st pick PLUS players to get into the top 5. 
 

I would still expect a cheap vet to come in to help have some experience in the room. Can’t roll with two rookies. 

I wasn't thinking Leonard, but I was thinking someone like Ryan Kelly(21+Kelly to go to around top 10). He's been pretty good, but by no means irreplaceble IMO and he is on a long-term contract that is not cheap.  This is one of my guesses about the player we could be offering(this is pure speculation based on nothing but my own thoughts on the situation). The other package of players I was thinking about is something like Bobby Okereke and Rock Yasin. The bad thing about having so many starters hitting free agency this year is that you cannot trade any of them, even if you were willing to let them go. For example, we might be willing to let go Hooker or Walker but now we can't use them in such a trade, even if they had some value. Dallas for instance is desperate for a single high safety and they pick at no. 10. I've been listening to their draft podcast and they seem eager to move back and accumulate assets or players and they are in frantic search of a free safety with range. Had we actually taken Hooker his 5th year option, which is relatively cheap, we could now trade him in a package like that. Lets say 21+Hooker+3d for no.10. 

 

I agree that Ballard and co. probably were not too crazy about Stafford if they were trying to build a package without even giving up our 1st round pick. Also agree about us getting a vet(my favorite is Fitzpatrick) if we draft a rookie, to be insurance and competition for the rookie. 

[stitches]

14 hours ago, John Hammonds said:

OMG.  Ballard must have read my post about offering two 2nd round picks plus RYS and Banogu.

Doh.

Yeah... one of the packages I was thinking about was similar - RYS, Okereke and a pick to move up in the draft. It makes some sense, especially if they are losing hope with someone like RYS(or Banagu)...

[stitches]

14 hours ago, Zoltan said:

 

Makes me think that since they passed on the 8th pick the Lions like Goff as an answer to replace Stafford or they think the rams will crash and burn the next two seasons.

Not entirely unreasonable. That roster is held by scotchtape money-wise and they have very little premier talent coming for cheap from the draft in the next several years(and few years back too). 

[chad72]

14 hours ago, John Hammonds said:

OMG.  Ballard must have read my post about offering two 2nd round picks plus RYS and Banogu.

Doh.

 

Or heard about my blasphemous sports talk radio call about giving up No.21 and Darius Leonard for pick No.6 for the future franchise QB Zach Wilson? 

[twfish]

Personally I think Ballard whipped up a package and then said well before you accept an offer let us know and we will see what we can do to beat it and then the Rams shocked everyone. I would bet a ton of money saying that Ballard was more than willing to deal the first round pick you just dont go all in on your first offer. Ballard said "We were very competitive but L.A dropped a bomb"

[Myles]

The Lions made a great deal.   Getting 2 first round picks, 1 third round pick and a starting QB.   

[#12.]

40 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Or heard about my blasphemous sports talk radio call about giving up No.21 and Darius Leonard for pick No.6 for the future franchise QB Zach Wilson? 

 

I would do that.  Unfortunately he's probably gone at #2.  

 

Wilson is the one who jumps off the screen for me.  I might even take him over Lawrence and Burrow.  He doesn't play like Manning, aesthetically it doesn't look like Manning, but his quick decision making, quick release and ability to pinpoint the ball, it's Manning-esque.  That guy is impressive.

 

Unfortunately we know it's not happening.

[Indeee]

None of this is relevant if the Colts truly put their money where their mouths have been... i.e. coaches can coach players into being great stuff

 

I keep banging the Trubisky drum for a reason. This guy comes cheap and should be a no brainer move for the Colts IF:

 

The Colts truly feel that the Bears coaching have done this kid an injustice. Ballard should be familiar with Nagy from his KC days. 

 

Here is the kicker, if Ballard actually thought Nagy was the real deal, then why didn't the Colts push for Nagy in 2018??, which coincidentally was when Bears hired him and was same year Reich was eventually hired. It was McDaniels who the Colts sought though, not Nagy... So why?

 

That's my point. If Ballard knew Nagy wasn't all that and truly believes in his preaching that coaches coach players bunk, then Trubisky is and should be the hands down choice to be here in Indy........ you continue to build around Trubisky with more skill pieces, defense, etc...

 

Now this would take going after A. Robinson off the table although guys like Smith-Schuster or Godwin or Gallup you still could go after

 

*See if the Colts really were entertaining moving on from YaSin or banagou or even Okerekee then the Colts should throw one of these guys to Dallas for Gallup straight up... forget the picks do player for player

 

 

 

 

[Indeee]

Here's another thing. I'm going so far as to say the Colts NEVER wanted Stafford and the reason why they offered a "light package" to get him was to basically throw bait to see the leagues interest so they knew where they were going to stand in terms to how much REAL competition there is going to be for QBs when the new league year really hits

 

 

[Myles]

17 minutes ago, Indeee said:

None of this is relevant if the Colts truly put their money where their mouths have been... i.e. coaches can coach players into being great stuff

 

I keep banging the Trubisky drum for a reason. This guy comes cheap and should be a no brainer move for the Colts IF:

 

The Colts truly feel that the Bears coaching have done this kid an injustice. Ballard should be familiar with Nagy from his KC days. 

 

Here is the kicker, if Ballard actually thought Nagy was the real deal, then why didn't the Colts push for Nagy in 2018??, which coincidentally was when Bears hired him and was same year Reich was eventually hired. It was McDaniels who the Colts sought though, not Nagy... So why?

 

That's my point. If Ballard knew Nagy wasn't all that and truly believes in his preaching that coaches coach players bunk, then Trubisky is and should be the hands down choice to be here in Indy........ you continue to build around Trubisky with more skill pieces, defense, etc...

 

Now this would take going after A. Robinson off the table although guys like Smith-Schuster or Godwin or Gallup you still could go after

 

*See if the Colts really were entertaining moving on from YaSin or banagou or even Okerekee then the Colts should throw one of these guys to Dallas for Gallup straight up... forget the picks do player for player

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be the same for Darnold?

[ColtsGermany]

Oh.... I read "Beer report".... 

 

The information gathered in this thread is good, too. But Beer would have gotten more of my attention 

 

To be serious... I don't think CB was for real on Stafford. 

[stitches]

8 minutes ago, Myles said:

Wouldn't it be the same for Darnold?

And if they TRULY TRULY believe it, they might even take a shot at Rosen.  

[Indeee]

8 minutes ago, Myles said:

Wouldn't it be the same for Darnold?

In the terms of Darnold being ruined by Gase, yes. Difference here though is that Darnold would have to be aquired through a trade, Trubisky is a true FA

[chad72]

10 minutes ago, Myles said:

Wouldn't it be the same for Darnold?

 

Yep, the Adam Gase factor and how players like Tannehill, Minkah Fitzpatrick, Kenyan Drake all did well once they left the confines of an Adam Gase system.

 

I still think Plan B is Darnold but Trubisky would be an acceptable Plan C and he might come with instant chemistry with Allen Robinson if we do get him.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Indeee said:

In the terms of Darnold being ruined by Gase, yes. Difference here though is that Darnold would have to be aquired through a trade, Trubisky is a true FA

 

For the record, I believe the same things about Trubisky as you do, that he did not get the best QB coaching out with Nagy which I believe would be different with Reich that has worked with Peyton, Luck, Rivers, Wentz etc.

[Indeee]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

And if they TRULY TRULY believe it, they might even take a shot at Rosen.  

What does Rosen have to with anything? 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Indeee said:

What does Rosen have to with anything? 

He's a talented QB, who's been broken and needs fixing. Even more broken than the Darnolds and Trubisky's of the world. 

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, Indeee said:

What does Rosen have to with anything? 

Highly rated college QB in the draft who got poor coaching like Darnold.

 

Trubisky is a true free agent, but Darnold would be a little cheaper if we get him for a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

Rosen would be real cheap to bring in and compete with Eason and Darnold.   Then probably end up on the practice squad.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

So that's the ticket.... let's give the keys to our Franchise to a QB that's Flopped thinking he Flopped because of lack of/poor coaching. 

 

[Indeee]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

He's a talented QB, who's been broken and needs fixing. Even more broken than the Darnolds and Trubisky's of the world. 

You can't be serious? Rosen sucks. Have you ever watched him play when given an opportunity? No where near Trubisky or Darnold. Rosen is Haskin-like or worse. Come on... I think that was an attempt at either a dig or a joke in which case both failed and if by chance you truly believe Rosen is talent and broken then no one on this forum should ever listen to a word you say ever again...

[DougDew]

So who were the players?

 

I would think Hines might be one.  He has value.  How much will the Colts have to pay him next year and is he replaceable with a different scat player?  

 

Lewis.

 

Willis.

 

Decent players, but guys that might not get signed when their contracts are due.  Replaceable in the draft.

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Indeee said:

You can't be serious? Rosen sucks. Have you ever watched him play when given an opportunity? No where near Trubisky or Darnold. Rosen is Haskin-like or worse. Come on... I think that was an attempt at either a dig or a joke in which case both failed and if by chance you truly believe Rosen is talent and broken then no one on this forum should ever listen to a word you say ever again...

It was a joke. My point was... even if they believe in their abilities to coach a QB, this doesn't mean they would be willing to put their jobs on the line on QBs who've already failed and in the case of Trubisky, he failed with decent talent around him and supposedly good offensive coach. 

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So who were the players?

 

I would think Hines might be one.  He has value.  How much will the Colts have to pay him next year and is he replaceable with a different scat player?  

 

Lewis.

 

Willis.

 

Decent players, but guys that might not get signed when their contracts are due.  Replaceable in the draft.

IMO OKereke has value, RYS might have value... Kelly has enough value to singlehandedly put in top 10 territory probably(Kelly+21). I wonder if Campbell has value? Maybe not enough with all his injuries... 

[Indeee]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

It was a joke. My point was... even if they believe in their abilities to coach a QB, this doesn't mean they would be willing to put their jobs on the line on QBs who've already failed and in the case of Trubisky, he failed with decent talent around him and supposedly good offensive coach. 

The bolded part you mentioned is the Tannehill story and quite possibly the Darnold story as Gase was involved twice.... and besides, if the Coach isn't willing to bet on themselves or lay it on the line in a position they were hired and paid handsomely to be, then that team hired the wrong guy and that guy needs to be axed

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

IMO OKereke has value, RYS might have value... Kelly has enough value to singlehandedly put in top 10 territory probably(Kelly+21). I wonder if Campbell has value? Maybe not enough with all his injuries... 

We have a lot of players that will be coming off of contracts after 2021 and 2022.  We won't be able to, or will not want to, sign all of them. 

 

Oke leaves us thin at LB.  Too hard to replace, IMO.

 

I think Ballard should look to move some young guys and save the picks.  JMO.

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

It was a joke. My point was... even if they believe in their abilities to coach a QB, this doesn't mean they would be willing to put their jobs on the line on QBs who've already failed and in the case of Trubisky, he failed with decent talent around him and supposedly good offensive coach. 

 

That supposedly good offensive coach consistently had OL issues and couldn't get production out of Foles or Trubisky consistently (except for 1 last few game stretch for the Bears with Trubisky). Outside Allen Robinson, they did not have the OL or offensive talent the Colts currently have and I do believe the Colts will add more, IMO. 

 

Trubisky is a 1 or 2 read QB but sometimes I feel so can Tannehill be in a boot leg, roll out and hit your first 2 reads and if not, take off and get yards with your legs. The reason it works is because of Derrick Henry. The same can work with Darnold or Trubisky with good OL and run game help. Plus, when you start learning to trust your OL, you will progress past your first 2 reads, IMO. That is where the OL and QB coaching will help.

 

A 1 or 2 year prove it deal does not put their jobs on the line if it is done with the blessing of Irsay, IMO.

[stitches]

Just now, Indeee said:

The bolded part you mentioned is the Tannehill story and quite possibly the Darnold story as Gase was involved twice.... and besides, if the Coach isn't willing to bet on themselves or lay it on the line in a position they were hired and paid handsomely to be, then that team hired the wrong guy and that guy needs to be axed

It's not as simple as this though. Trubisky and Darnold have serious amount of tape now. Coaches probably know what they can expect of him and probably have good idea about what's fixable and what's not. My whole point was exactly that... they might want to bet their career on fixing one player and not another depending on where their deficiencies are. It's not as simple as - if you believe in your coaching ability you should be willing to take on this or that project. No coach is omnipotent and can fix every single imaginable problem of a player. 

[Myles]

15 minutes ago, Indeee said:

You can't be serious? Rosen sucks. Have you ever watched him play when given an opportunity? No where near Trubisky or Darnold. Rosen is Haskin-like or worse. Come on... I think that was an attempt at either a dig or a joke in which case both failed and if by chance you truly believe Rosen is talent and broken then no one on this forum should ever listen to a word you say ever again...

Rosen was thought of, by many experts, to be the best QB in the draft.   He went to a crappy Arizona team then to a crappy Miami team.

I certainly wouldn't sign him as the starter or backup, but I'd bring him in to compete and be the 3rd string possibility.  

[richard pallo]

I always thought that if we were going to include a player or players in our trade talks that Leonard would have a chance of being included.  Not anymore.  Last night on CNN they showed what I think was a commercial featuring Irsay and Leonard called "Kicking The Stigma".  In it Irsay starts talking about how he and his family and the Colt's were looking for a cause to support going forward and he said they were supporting Mental Health Awareness.  Leonard then appeared and talked about how he suffered mental health issues and he talked about the initiative and how he has been able to successfully overcome it.   I didn't see it but my son texted me about it as he saw it on the network.  I guess that makes me think he will not be included in any trade packages.  Hopefully you can find it out there somewhere.  

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, #12. said:

 

I would do that.  Unfortunately he's probably gone at #2.  

 

Wilson is the one who jumps off the screen for me.  I might even take him over Lawrence and Burrow.  He doesn't play like Manning, aesthetically it doesn't look like Manning, but his quick decision making, quick release and ability to pinpoint the ball, it's Manning-esque.  That guy is impressive.

 

Unfortunately we know it's not happening.

I thought Manning was an ugly, clunky looking QB until the ball made it between the numbers of the correct receiver all the time.

[stitches]

18 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

That supposedly good offensive coach consistently had OL issues and couldn't get production out of Foles or Trubisky consistently (except for 1 last few game stretch for the Bears with Trubisky). Outside Allen Robinson, they did not have the OL or offensive talent the Colts currently have and I do believe the Colts will add more, IMO. 

 

Trubisky is a 1 or 2 read QB but sometimes I feel so can Tannehill be in a boot leg, roll out and hit your first 2 reads and if not, take off and get yards with your legs. The reason it works is because of Derrick Henry. The same can work with Darnold or Trubisky with good OL and run game help. Plus, when you start learning to trust your OL, you will progress past your first 2 reads, IMO. That is where the OL and QB coaching will help.

 

A 1 or 2 year prove it deal does not put their jobs on the line if it is done with the blessing of Irsay, IMO.

I personally would rather not. Retread QBs are very VERY rarely successful if they've been as bad previously as Trubisky has been with Chicago. People are mentioning Tannehill but 1. he was much better with Miami than Trubisky has ever been and 2. Tannehill is the exception, not the rule. Now... if they go for a QB from the draft... I wouldn't be completely opposed to getting Trubisky as a reclamation project and backup/competition for the new guy. I doubt he will want to do that though.