Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

A lot of talk in Jax about the Colts talking to Atlanta about Ryan


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, The Fish said:

You don't want to give up multiple first round picks to grab the 5th best prospect in the draft?!!!?!?! 

 

Crazy I say 

Would you give multiple firsts for Tua?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

His cap hits are nothing like that for team he is traded to.   It's: 2021 - $23m 2022 - $23.75m 2023 - $28m

we know. The only person you want is Mac Jones.

I never understand why people think we can draft a quarterback who will solve our problems. That worked before because we had the No. 1 pick. The chances of doing it where we are picking now isn't so

Posted Images

29 minutes ago, coltsfanatic24 said:

Matt Ryan throughout his career has been consistently a top 10 QB and he’s never had a offensive line as great as the one we have now. If Rivers could thrive at his age of 39 years old than Ryan can do the same at 36. 
 

There are too many teams in the top 15 that needs a QB so it will be very difficult to trade up. Matt Ryan and Carson Wentz are probably the best options this team has right now. 

Exactly.  There are 3 elite QBs and 2 others with which to build with.  I think we will have to supply more draft picks than normal to jump teams.

 

CHI will draft the 5th QB on the board right before us, provided there is a QB left.  WASH will take Lance if he's there (Alex Smith?, really).  New England at #15, who is their QB?  Denver? Carolina?

 

Fields and Wilson are better prospects than Mayfield and Darnold, IMO.  Lance and Jones are each worth mid first rounders.

 

What team who needs a QB would not simply take one that's there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An emphatic no. You are giving up maybe two 1st round picks for a guy you may get two years out of. Not a good return on investment. Stafford is four years younger if I recall. That's huge. I'd rather keep our picks, use our 21 for our LT of the future (partial to the kid from VT). Use the draft and FA to fill in other holes and then ride with Eason. Build the best team you can around him. A great offensive line, a great running game and a top ten defense means he doesn't have to be superman his first year, just not ugly. The kids has all the physical tools. If Reich is the QB whisperer everybody says he is the let him prove it. Let him turn this diamond in the rough into a solid, competent QB. Remember Peyton did pretty well here and was 3-13 his first year. I'm not expect Eason to ever be Peyton, or even Andrew in his healthy years. But we can surround him with a much better team than Andrew ever had, and a better defense than Peyton ever had. We're not going to get a long term franchise QB anytime in the near future. So let's build a TEAM that wins without one and see if Eason can become one. Or at least be good enough not to lose games.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FRW said:

An emphatic no. You are giving up maybe two 1st round picks for a guy you may get two years out of. Not a good return on investment. Stafford is four years younger if I recall. That's huge. I'd rather keep our picks, use our 21 for our LT of the future (partial to the kid from VT). Use the draft and FA to fill in other holes and then ride with Eason. Build the best team you can around him. A great offensive line, a great running game and a top ten defense means he doesn't have to be superman his first year, just not ugly. The kids has all the physical tools. If Reich is the QB whisperer everybody says he is the let him prove it. Let him turn this diamond in the rough into a solid, competent QB. Remember Peyton did pretty well here and was 3-13 his first year. I'm not expect Eason to ever be Peyton, or even Andrew in his healthy years. But we can surround him with a much better team than Andrew ever had, and a better defense than Peyton ever had. We're not going to get a long term franchise QB anytime in the near future. So let's build a TEAM that wins without one and see if Eason can become one. Or at least be good enough not to lose games.

I think it's pretty clear Ballard has no intention of starting Eason next year

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Ryan has had many winning seasons in Atlanta and has put up huge numbers. He was a hair away from winning the SB in 2016.

Sorry I should have specified more. I meant "win" in terms of championships/playoff wins etc.. I realize albeit a stupid kyle shannahan play call, he would've won a super bowl however you now should get my point

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Ryan should be a SB Champion in reality and I agree his accuracy is great.

If he could have made a first down or two in the second half they would have won it. He was unable to get it done for whatever the reason. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Ryan won when he had a RB, running game.  Who was it, Devonte Fields and that dude from IU.  I got the names wrong but y'all know who I'm talking about.

 

He's had no running game or defense most of his career.  

You don't watch the Falcons much in guessing

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, luv_pony_express said:

That would depend on the level of confidence they have in a QB we could get at 4.

 

The nice thing about a vet is that it’s far less of a crapshoot than any drafted QB.  Blake Bortles was taken 3rd.  Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Mitch Trubisky.  The list of bust QBs taken high in the draft is very long.

 

Thank you. I can't stand the constant "We need to move up and get our next franchise QB".  Look over the last 10 years of drafting QBs in round one, and they fail far more than they success. I think unless you are looking at Peyton, Luck, or Trevor Lawrence, it is not worth the risk to trade that many picks on a guy like Fields who I think will be a bust.  Sure, I wish we had a shot at Lawrence, but that isn't happening.  So in that case, I would rather get a guy like Ryan, Wentz, or even Darnold, have them compete with Eason, and maybe add another QB 2-4 round.  We have about as much chance as hitting on a QB with Eason and a pick 2-4 then we do trading up.  

 

I just think people saying we should move up to get a franchise QB seem to think trading up drafting someone high automatically makes them a franchise QB.  To me, there are a half dozen franchise QBs in the NFL and the rest are average.  And what I think is funny is the Eason is often written off.  But if Eason had stayed at Washington one more year, he would like be a #1 pick in the coming draft and those same people would be saying we should pick Eason.  Does have #1 pick QB carry some kind of special label??

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This actually makes more sense than Wentz.  I think they went for Wentz 1st because they thought he wouldn't be that expensive.  Wrong!  Now Ryan makes the most sense.  They know they can win now with him just like last year with Rivers.  Gives them plenty of time to develop Eason or someone else.  Reich and Ballard are both going into the last years of their contracts and are so close to a SB.  Want a likelier way to insure a lot of wins and a  playoff appearance or more?  Trade for Ryan.  Coaches and GM's want wins on their resumes.  Ryan gives them a great chance of achieving that with much less risk.  Rivers is a good example.   He makes them a legitimate contender again.  More so than Wentz.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

I think it's pretty clear Ballard has no intention of starting Eason next year

I hope he also has no intention of mortgaging the teams future on a 36 year old stop gap. There is no guaranteed winning move here. He can bring in someone on the downhill side of his career which is fine, but not if you're giving up this years #1. Or he can try to trade up to grab a rookie who may be no better than what we've got. Or he can pick up one of the FA, none of whom are SB caliber QBs in my opinion.

 

So if he is not going to give Eason a shot then put JB back in to start the season. He's no worse than most of the FA, costs us nothing but his salary, which should be much lower this coming year, knows the play book, and gives Eason another year to learn. 

 

There is no fairy godmother coming to our rescue. We either overpay, take a chance on someone who hasn't wowed where they're at presently, or roll with what we've got.  We're not getting Lawrence, Wilson, Lance or Fields, Watson is not coming here, Rogers is going nowhere, and Wentz, Darnold and Ryan aren't worth either the cost or the chance. As Jake says there is no Rogers rate in the real world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, w87r said:

Atlanta is not coming off the #4 pick.

 

Can just about guarantee that.

 

Especially not for a future 1st and a 2nd. We pick at #21 and they'll need a QB sooner or later too. 

 

I'd be down for trading for Ryan if the price isn't too steep but I don't see them trading that far back for anything except a ludicrous offer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, danlhart87 said:

I would gladly take Trubisky over either.

We would save our picks and use them well 

Wentz and Ryan have proven they can do it in the past.  One had an mvp like season the other was mvp.

 

Trubisky is a total reclamation project.  there is no proof that he can do it. 

 

That all being said whoever ballard gets i am going to trust that Reich can work with them but if it were me i'd hedge my bet on someone who has shown they can do it before.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

Wentz and Ryan have proven they can do it in the past.  One had an mvp like season the other was mvp.

 

Trubisky is a total reclamation project.  there is no proof that he can do it. 

 

That all being said whoever ballard gets i am going to trust that Reich can work with them but if it were me i'd hedge my bet on someone who has shown they can do it before.

Both Ryan and Wentz are expensive and will cost draft picks

 

I'll take the cheaper option 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

Both Ryan and Wentz are expensive and will cost draft picks

 

I'll take the cheaper option 

why?  you'd rather save and lose than pay and win?  This team is close now.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

@danlhart87

   The thing I see encouraging about MT is that he is a relative young(1 year college starter) QB

There are plenty of young people that can't play qb that ballard can sign.  I don't get the fascination with trubisky.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

why?  you'd rather save and lose than pay and win?  This team is close now.  

It isn't a guarantee Trubisky would fail here. Hes a very low risk high reward. 

 

Id do 1 year deal 

If he balls out bring him back 

 

If not start Eason 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fluke_33 said:

There are plenty of young people that can't play qb that ballard can sign.  I don't get the fascination with trubisky.  

Who

Just now, danlhart87 said:

It isn't a guarantee Trubisky would fail here. Hes a very low risk high reward. 

 

Id do 1 year deal 

If he balls out bring him back 

 

If not start Eason 

I would prefer 2 years as a safety net if JE is not the one 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FRW said:

An emphatic no. You are giving up maybe two 1st round picks for a guy you may get two years out of. Not a good return on investment. Stafford is four years younger if I recall. That's huge. I'd rather keep our picks, use our 21 for our LT of the future (partial to the kid from VT). Use the draft and FA to fill in other holes and then ride with Eason. Build the best team you can around him. A great offensive line, a great running game and a top ten defense means he doesn't have to be superman his first year, just not ugly. The kids has all the physical tools. If Reich is the QB whisperer everybody says he is the let him prove it. Let him turn this diamond in the rough into a solid, competent QB. Remember Peyton did pretty well here and was 3-13 his first year. I'm not expect Eason to ever be Peyton, or even Andrew in his healthy years. But we can surround him with a much better team than Andrew ever had, and a better defense than Peyton ever had. We're not going to get a long term franchise QB anytime in the near future. So let's build a TEAM that wins without one and see if Eason can become one. Or at least be good enough not to lose games.


I think the target goal for Eason is likely 2022.

 

Hopefully the backup in 2021.   And depending on who our starter is in ‘21, maybe Eason starts the following year.   One year step up at a time. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Who

My son has never played the position and he's 21.  he could be signed.  

 

My point is that the only evidence we have on trubisky is that he isn't good.  The fact that hes young doesn't have any bearing on it.  Id rather have older and good than younger and not good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:


I think the target goal fir Eason is likely 2022.

 

Hopefully the backup in 2021.   And depending on who our starter is in ‘21, maybe Eason starts the following year.   One year step up at a time. 

This is how I feel 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, lennymoore24 said:

 

Thank you. I can't stand the constant "We need to move up and get our next franchise QB".  Look over the last 10 years of drafting QBs in round one, and they fail far more than they success. I think unless you are looking at Peyton, Luck, or Trevor Lawrence, it is not worth the risk to trade that many picks on a guy like Fields who I think will be a bust.  Sure, I wish we had a shot at Lawrence, but that isn't happening.  So in that case, I would rather get a guy like Ryan, Wentz, or even Darnold, have them compete with Eason, and maybe add another QB 2-4 round.  We have about as much chance as hitting on a QB with Eason and a pick 2-4 then we do trading up.  

 

I just think people saying we should move up to get a franchise QB seem to think trading up drafting someone high automatically makes them a franchise QB.  To me, there are a half dozen franchise QBs in the NFL and the rest are average.  And what I think is funny is the Eason is often written off.  But if Eason had stayed at Washington one more year, he would like be a #1 pick in the coming draft and those same people would be saying we should pick Eason.  Does have #1 pick QB carry some kind of special label??

 

Not only that, it's costly to move up -- especially that much.  Remember how much we marveled at what we got from the Jets for them to go from 6 to 3?  Out of that trade, we ultimately ended up with Nelson, Braden Smith, Wilkins, Turay, and Rock Ya-Sin....they ended up with a QB they're already trying to replace after 3 lackluster seasons.

 

I like to reference the Massey-Thaler essay on draft value called "The Loser's Curse".  These guys are a couple of economists who, IMO, correctly assailed the NFL's out of whack system of valuing draft picks as compared to veterans.  One of their basic arguments is that, in terms of "draft capital", teams tend to overvalue first-round picks -- especially high first-round picks.  Our trade with the Jets is a perfect example of this -- particularly considering that they ended up with a quarterback who I won't call a bust....but who I'm sure they wouldn't have traded so much to pick at 3 if they had it to do over again.

 

Is there a chance that Z. Wilson or Mac Jones could end up being a "franchise" quarterback?  Yes.  Is there also a chance they could end up being yet another first-rounder who ends up on somebody's bench?  Yes.  And just how much would you have the team gamble on that outcome?

 

Everybody in the NFL has a pretty good idea what kind of player Wentz is -- same with Ryan, same with Darnold, Carr, etal.  The range of uncertainty on them is far more narrow than it is on any draft pick....including Trevor Lawrence.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

My son has never played the position and he's 21.  he could be signed.  

 

My point is that the only evidence we have on trubisky is that he isn't good.  The fact that hes young doesn't have any bearing on it.  Id rather have older and good than younger and not good.

 

I'd take your kid. 

 

Honestly, the Mitch thing is a weird/bad idea.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stitches said:

I say we go for Matt Ryan with 21+future 3d or something... then next year when Ryan retires we use another 1st and 3d for Big Ben... then after he retires the following year we can use another 1st for the next vet. We can serve as a retirement home for vet QBs. 

 

Then, we can retire their jersey numbers and call them the Colts Expendables. :) 

 

Rivers, Matt Ryan, Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers at the Indy 500 some day - The Colts Expendables

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

I am trying to understand how Matty Ice makes the Colts demonstrably better than they were with Rivers...and I am actually a big fan.

 

 

He doesn't bring a greater ceiling than Rivers, unless we have an out of the world D that we need money and draft capital to build to support any QB, who might as well be a rookie QB that doesn't hurt the cap, right??

 

However, the question is, if given a choice, would you have given it another go with Rivers with additional talent assembled and one more off season for him to build more chemistry with the pass catchers? I would have. If that were the case, Matt Ryan being explored becomes a bit more logical, the difference being the draft capital given up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

I am trying to understand how Matty Ice makes the Colts demonstrably better than they were with Rivers...and I am actually a big fan.

 

 

Who else does?

 

You keep arguing as if there are better options?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

I am trying to understand how Matty Ice makes the Colts demonstrably better than they were with Rivers...and I am actually a big fan.

 

 

He can throw intermediate and deep still. That's something that Phil really didn't do all that well last year.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

I am trying to understand how Matty Ice makes the Colts demonstrably better than they were with Rivers...and I am actually a big fan.

 

 

Im curious of something 

If Colts get Ryan how would he play

Remember he isn't throwing to Jones or Ridley here 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Then, we can retire their jersey numbers and call them the Colts Expendables. :) 

 

Rivers, Matt Ryan, Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers at the Indy 500 some day - The Colts Expendables

Colts - where legends go to die! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people think Eason is an option to start?

He may start in 2022 or later, but I can't see it next year. We are signing someone, even if it comes down to Brissett - which is not something I want to see.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Orioles22 said:

Why do people think Eason is an option to start?

He may start in 2022 or later, but I can't see it next year. We are signing someone, even if it comes down to Brissett - which is not something I want to see.

Asking Ask Me GIF by PinkNews

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Shive locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...