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

4 minutes 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.

No one thinks Eason should be starting. They are saying worst case scenario, roll with. You kill 4 birds with 1 stone.

 

1. See what Eason has

2. Save money to build better team

3. Save draft capital

4. Chance it works, if not, high draft pick.

 

 

It is better than retreading with a guy to maybe get to 8-8 or sacrificing future cap space and draft capital on someone not worth it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
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

I may have missed it, but isn't Jameis an option?  We know he has a great arm, just made a lot of bad decisions.  

 

It seems odd that people will talk about Darnold, Mitch, and others that have less talent but not mention Winston.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Smonroe said:

I may have missed it, but isn't Jameis an option?  We know he has a great arm, just made a lot of bad decisions.  

 

It seems odd that people will talk about Darnold, Mitch, and others that have less talent but not mention Winston.

 

He is being mentioned in the QB Preference thread

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, w87r said:

No one thinks Eason should be starting. They are saying worst case scenario, roll with. You kill 4 birds with 1 stone.

 

1. See what Eason has

2. Save money to build better team

3. Save draft capital

4. Chance it works, if not, high draft pick.

 

 

It is better than retreading with a guy to maybe get to 8-8 or sacrificing future cap space and draft capital on someone not worth it.

 

That's all true.  Add to it that Ballard has said the window is just cracking, so there's plenty of time.

 

However, I just can't see it.  Even if they think it's worth the shot, they'd bring in someone like Fitz or another vet.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Smonroe said:

I may have missed it, but isn't Jameis an option?  We know he has a great arm, just made a lot of bad decisions.  

 

It seems odd that people will talk about Darnold, Mitch, and others that have less talent but not mention Winston.

 

We got a guy with a great arm that might not make a lot of bad decisions.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

That's all true.  Add to it that Ballard has said the window is just cracking, so there's plenty of time.

 

However, I just can't see it.  Even if they think it's worth the shot, they'd bring in someone like Fitz or another vet.

 

I agree, Im just saying why people are talking about Eason starting.

 

It's not that, that it is what they want. Just a why not, worse case scenario.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, w87r said:

No one thinks Eason should be starting. They are saying worst case scenario, roll with. You kill 4 birds with 1 stone.

 

1. See what Eason has

2. Save money to build better team

3. Save draft capital

4. Chance it works, if not, high draft pick.

 

 

It is better than retreading with a guy to maybe get to 8-8 or sacrificing future cap space and draft capital on someone not worth it.

I think the only way that happens is if Irsay gives Ballard a free pass on a possible terrible season.     Ballard isn't going to put his job on the line with a basically complete unknown 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

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.

 

If that was the choice...then yes...just run it back with Rivers. At least Rivers was a FA...and didn't require draft capital. I just think it's difficult to reasonably expect a guy like Ryan to give the Colts better production next season than what they ended up getting from Rivers last season...which was pretty good.

 

But I think it's a false choice. There are more ways to address QB than recycling vets...and unless you can get your hands on a guy like Watson or Russ....it's just not a viable strategy towards what should be the overall goal. It worked for TB because it's Tom Brady and because their roster was completely stacked...from years and years of losing. The Colts roster isn't particularly close to that level...and it's certainly not going to get there if they are spending more cap space as well as premium draft capital to get a QB with a high floor but limited ceiling (like Ryan).

 

If the SB is the goal...you have to shoot your shot in the draft. If it doesn't work...at least they tried. I just don't think there are shortcuts...except for those guys I mentioned above (but the cost associated with it makes it a very difficult thing to navigate).

 

All of these vet moves (we have been legitimately discussing) feel like shortcuts...safe, comfortable moves that won't blow up...but also won't put them over the top. I said this about 40 pages ago in the other thread...but I think there is a lot of misconception about the current construction and strength of this roster. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 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 might not.  But that really isn’t the question facing Ballard.

 

The first question is whether they want a long-term or short-term solution at the position.  Are they wanting to maximize wins the next couple years or build more towards future years?

 

And, next, what realistic quarterback options — weighed against all the costs to acquire him — best suit that goal?

 

The uncomfortable truth is that there may not be a QB available to us who makes us better than we were this past season.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes 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.

IMO the real question is, do CB and FR see Eason as EVER being a viable option, in 2022 and/or beyond?

 

If they do, then maybe going after an older vet in FA or a trade might make more sense. If they don't, then going after an older vet might have less appeal, at least if it costs a lot of draft capital and/or cap space.

 

The Colts may be in a spot (only temporarily, let's hope) where the "long-term solution" to QB simply isn't available in 2021, except at a cost that would set the team back in terms of finding other solutions for LT, DE, CB, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we can get a Russell Wilson rumor thread going? Might as well right?! Reports of him being unhappy taking so many hits and Seattle management unhappy that he went public with that opinion. If he was a serious candidate of leaving Seattle, this is who we should 100% pursue. Chances of him leaving? Probably pretty meh, but I’d be about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

Maybe we can get a Russell Wilson rumor thread going? Might as well right?! Reports of him being unhappy taking so many hits and Seattle management unhappy that he went public with that opinion. If he was a serious candidate of leaving Seattle, this is who we should 100% pursue. Chances of him leaving? Probably pretty meh, but I’d be about it. 

Or a Taylor Heinike Thread as the Skins just signed him to a two year deal and I'm sure they did this so they could do a sign and trade scenario so let's offer up a couple picks for Heinike...

 

:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

Maybe we can get a Russell Wilson rumor thread going? Might as well right?! Reports of him being unhappy taking so many hits and Seattle management unhappy that he went public with that opinion. If he was a serious candidate of leaving Seattle, this is who we should 100% pursue. Chances of him leaving? Probably pretty meh, but I’d be about it. 

 No just put it in other QB thread or this one.

 

 

This one is specific now(likely to take over main qb thread if Wentz goes elsewhere), other one is a general just more talk of Wentz for last week or so 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, w87r said:

 No just put it in other QB thread or this one.

 

 

This one is specific now(likely to take over main qb thread if Wentz goes elsewhere), other one is a general just more talk of Wentz for last week or so 

Word I Agree GIF by INTO ACTION

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

He might not.  But that really isn’t the question facing Ballard.

 

The first question is whether they want a long-term or short-term solution at the position.  Are they wanting to maximize wins the next couple years or build more towards future years?

 

And, next, what realistic quarterback options — weighed against all the costs to acquire him — best suit that goal?

 

The uncomfortable truth is that there may not be a QB available to us who makes us better than we were this past season.

 

 

The way I see it...not only is it a question facing Ballard...it's the main question that matters. Can they make the appreciable leap from the offense they had with Rivers to a top 5 offense (with the QB they acquire)? That will be how they get to and win the SB. 

 

So does that QB alone allow the Colts to make that leap? Probably not...only a few would...and I don't see HOU trading Watson to the Colts or SEA trading Wilson. 

 

So given that, then it's about getting an upside QB who allows for the team to make the supplemental moves necessary.

 

Regardless of whether that happens next season or the following...the competitive window isn't truly opening without that QB. 

 

In the event that a better vet QB is not available...that's even more reason to roll the dice on the draft. The idea that Ballard would be on a hot seat right away for missing on a QB is goofy to me. Who buys that? Irsay loves him and he's a media darling. 

 

The Colts just can't be afraid to fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

The way I see it...not only is it a question facing Ballard...it's the main question that matters. Can they make the appreciable leap from the offense they had with Rivers to a top 5 offense (with the QB they acquire)? That will be how they get to and win the SB. 

 

So does that QB alone allow the Colts to make that leap? Probably not...only a few would...and I don't see HOU trading Watson to the Colts or SEA trading Wilson. 

 

So given that, then it's about getting an upside QB who allows for the team to make the supplemental moves necessary.

 

Regardless of whether that happens next season or the following...the competitive window isn't truly opening without that QB. 

 

In the event that a better vet QB is not available...that's even more reason to roll the dice on the draft. The idea that Ballard would be on a hot seat right away for missing on a QB is goofy to me. Who buys that? Irsay loves him and he's a media darling. 

 

The Colts just can't be afraid to fail.


So what about the possibility that they aren’t super high on any of the attainable QBs in the 2021 draft?  Take a flyer on one anyway?  Maybe they see some younger kids in future years they like better than the ones they could get this year.

 

Personally, I think it makes the most sense to get the best vet you can get for the price you’re willing to pay.  Continue developing Eason to see if he’s capable of being an heir apparent.

 

But we’re seeing now why it is that many NFL clubs struggle for years — decades, even — to get their hands on the right guy.  There are really only about 6 or 7 great QBs playing at any one time.  When there are 32 NFL teams, it’s not hard to understand why this is such a hard nut to crack.

 

Depending how you measure, Rivers was about the 15th best QB in the league last year.  As much as I’d love to see us get one in the top 10 or top 7, I think it’s unlikely....unless we get Wentz and he returns to his 2017 form.

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

As I told @w87r in the other QB thread

   The only way I would be interested in Ryan at his age is if there is a handshake made that barring injury he would not be a one year wonder

 

What does this mean? You'd be interested if he promises that he'll be good?

 

Am I being stupid? I can't read that statement in a way that makes it mean something different from that but that makes no sense at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mackrel829 said:

 

What does this mean? You'd be interested if he promises that he'll be good?

 

Am I being stupid? I can't read that statement in a way that makes it mean something different from that but that makes no sense at all.

 No 

   I would like an agreement that he would retire after one year

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, w87r said:

 No just put it in other QB thread or this one.

 

 

This one is specific now(likely to take over main qb thread if Wentz goes elsewhere), other one is a general just more talk of Wentz for last week or so 

 

1 hour ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Word I Agree GIF by INTO ACTION

 

LOL. I'm just having fun here. I'm more pointing out the obvious on how there isn't a Russell Wilson thread yet. As soon as there's a little smoke, there will be a new thread I'm sure of it. haha

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:


So what about the possibility that they aren’t super high on any of the attainable QBs in the 2021 draft?  Take a flyer on one anyway?  Maybe they see some younger kids in future years they like better than the ones they could get this year.

 

Personally, I think it makes the most sense to get the best vet you can get for the price you’re willing to pay.  Continue developing Eason to see if he’s capable of being an heir apparent.

 

But we’re seeing now why it is that many NFL clubs struggle for years — decades, even — to get their hands on the right guy.  There are really only about 6 or 7 great QBs playing at any one time.  When there are 32 NFL teams, it’s not hard to understand why this is such a hard nut to crack.

 

Depending how you measure, Rivers was about the 15th best QB in the league last year.  As much as I’d love to see us get one in the top 10 or top 7, I think it’s unlikely....unless we get Wentz and he returns to his 2017 form.

 

This is true. But environment plays a big role...and not many teams have it to begin with. Fortunately, the Colts do. I think that's a big advantage when it comes to drafting a QB.

 

Nowadays, with the college game and the NFL colliding more and more, I tend to think 6-7 becomes 9-10. So while not great odds...the reality remains that the only tried and true way is drafting a young QB that can develop (though I would make an exception for a unique situation like Darnold...where you have a post-hype QB prospect who is still as young as some draft prospects).

 

Because for me age plays a big factor in this. QBs (not named Mahomes) tend to peak in that 27-33 range. That means a QB should be ascending at that point...not regressing (like Wentz and Goff). Watson is a prime example of a QB who should have an incredible prime ahead of him...and that's why his trade haul should be stomach-churning.

 

But then you have a guy like Ryan...who is past that range. Stafford was still in his...but he was at the very end. 

 

That's not to say a guy like Stafford or Ryan couldn't keep playing at a high level. But as we have seen...only the true greats like PFM, Rodgers, Brees and Brady have been able to do that. That's a tough gamble to make.

 

 

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


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. 

If that's the case then you don't give away your 1st round pick for a 36 year old QB on the downhill side of his career. You either bring JB back or get a FA like Foles or Fitz, maybe Turbinsky or Jamieson and let Eason sit behind them for another year and learn. I'm cool with that. Then use #21 for your franchise LT and your other picks and your wallet to fill in the rest of your holes. Build a team that doesn't need a superstar QB to win SB's, just an above average one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FRW said:

If that's the case then you don't give away your 1st round pick for a 36 year old QB on the downhill side of his career. You either bring JB back or get a FA like Foles or Fitz, maybe Turbinsky or Jamieson and let Eason sit behind them for another year and learn. I'm cool with that. Then use #21 for your franchise LT and your other picks and your wallet to fill in the rest of your holes. Build a team that doesn't need a superstar QB to win SB's, just an above average one.

allison harvard nod GIF

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, FRW said:

If that's the case then you don't give away your 1st round pick for a 36 year old QB on the downhill side of his career. You either bring JB back or get a FA like Foles or Fitz, maybe Turbinsky or Jamieson and let Eason sit behind them for another year and learn. I'm cool with that. Then use #21 for your franchise LT and your other picks and your wallet to fill in the rest of your holes. Build a team that doesn't need a superstar QB to win SB's, just an above average one.

Yes....    all of this is very fluid.    If we trade for a Wentz or a Ryan type of QB, then Eason’s future becomes more murky.   He could still be the backup, but starter would be put unless the Wentz or Ryan bombed.

 

But...

 

If we don’t trade for an established QB, and sign a more classic bridge QB like Fitz or Dalton then Eason may still have a future as our starting quarterback someday. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

I would rather move up the draft for their No.4 pick with 2 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder.

 

They would laugh at that offer and never take another call from the 317 area code again.  Deservedly so.

 

8 hours ago, Indeee said:

Again, this to me, and I preface to me... this is stupid

 

If Matt Ryan could not win in Atlanta (Consistently) with the skill talent he has there, then why would anyone believe he could win here with less?

 

It makes NO sense... Julio and Ridley = Pittman and Pascal? :lol:..... Yeah..... NO

 

 

 

It is not nearly that simple.  Just spitballing here - maybe their losing was less tied to Ryan than it was to the coaching and schemes their now fired coach put them in.  

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

 

This is true. But environment plays a big role...and not many teams have it to begin with. Fortunately, the Colts do. I think that's a big advantage when it comes to drafting a QB.

 

Nowadays, with the college game and the NFL colliding more and more, I tend to think 6-7 becomes 9-10. So while not great odds...the reality remains that the only tried and true way is drafting a young QB that can develop (though I would make an exception for a unique situation like Darnold...where you have a post-hype QB prospect who is still as young as some draft prospects).

 

Because for me age plays a big factor in this. QBs (not named Mahomes) tend to peak in that 27-33 range. That means a QB should be ascending at that point...not regressing (like Wentz and Goff). Watson is a prime example of a QB who should have an incredible prime ahead of him...and that's why his trade haul should be stomach-churning.

 

But then you have a guy like Ryan...who is past that range. Stafford was still in his...but he was at the very end. 

 

That's not to say a guy like Stafford or Ryan couldn't keep playing at a high level. But as we have seen...only the true greats like PFM, Rodgers, Brees and Brady have been able to do that. That's a tough gamble to make.

 

 


I’m not as sure as you are that environment plays that big of a role in this.  I certainly wouldn’t say it’s meaningless. And I think the Colts have a fantastic culture.  I thank God we don’t have to endure the circuses that some franchises are.

 

But as far as landing star QBs, the Bills had Jim Kelly.  Then how many years was it until they found Josh Allen?  What did their environment have to do with getting either one, or the decades long lull between them?

 

Here’s the meat of the issue:  the team we have now was supposed to be the team that Andrew Luck would lead to the SB.  He left before he had the chance to drive the race car that Ballard put together for him.  The team is about 85% complete.  This is why they’re reluctant to do a rebuild around a rookie QB.  And I don’t blame them.  Unfortunately, when you rely on vets, you usually don’t get the elite guys...unless you stumble into it the way the Saints did years ago with Brees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

They would laugh at that offer and never take another call from the 317 area code again.  Deservedly so.

 

 

Nope, it is not out of the realm of possibility at all, we may have to sweeten it with another 3rd or 4th rounder but I am not to far off at all. For your reference, here is a trade value chart:

 

https://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

 

Values discussed here: Pick No.27 - 680, Pick No.21 - 800, Pick No.10 - 1300, Pick No.4 - 1800

 

Bills vs Chiefs 2017 trade - going from Pick No.27 to No.10 (jump of 620 points) - 2 first rounders (Pick No.27, future first rounder and 2017 3rd rounder)

 

Colts vs Falcons 2021 trade - going from Pick No.21 to No.4 (jump of 1000 points) - 2 first rounders (Pick No.21, future first rounder and 2021 2nd rounder).

 

While it might take an additional 3rd or 4th rounder to get the trade done in reality, it is not SO far off to justify your condescending uninformed opinion for them to despise the 317 area code. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BProland85 said:

Stop with the bandaid veteran QBs. Especially when talking about trading for one. Not a wise solution IMO. We need a more longterm solution. 

Agreed but Ballard is stuck at 21. Way to many teams ahead of him

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Agreed but Ballard is stuck at 21. Way to many teams ahead of him

But if we just draft a quarterback, any quarterback, he will solve our problems for the next 10 years. Then we can draft another one in two years, then another...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's zero chance Matt Ryan would cost two 1st rounders. I don't think he would even cost one 1st rounder. The cost would probably be a 2nd or 3rd along with a 5th. I'm not advocating for the Colts to trade for Ryan. I'm just saying whoever said he would cost two 1's is WAY off. 

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

I haven't really seen Ryan lately so can't  give my analysis.  But I either heard it OR read it that he's not very mobile  these days and his arm strength isn't so good.

As far as moving & throwing he's only slightly upgrade over Rivers. 

 

I don't know how true that is but like some said above I'd rather hope colts are talking to Atlanta about pick #4 rather than Ryan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

I haven't really seen Ryan lately so can't  give my analysis.  But I either heard it OR read it that he's not very mobile  these days and his arm strength isn't so good.

As far as moving & throwing he's only slightly upgrade over Rivers. 

 

I don't know how true that is but like some said above I'd rather hope colts are talking to Atlanta about pick #4 rather than Ryan. 

He has never been very mobile but his arm strength even now is good. It is better than what Rivers had last year and Rivers got us to 11-5. The coaching in Atlanta was terrible last season, when Ryan had a good run game he made the SB in 2016.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

, when Ryan had a good run game he made the SB in 2016.

 

Yeah but he couldn't run out the clock with a 4 TD lead and 5 minutes left. :funny:

 

But seriously,  I've always thought he was pretty good. Just played mostly with a inferior organization. 

 

I'd rather go all in on a Top Rookie but wouldn't mind seeing matty ice come here..... and maybe his buddy Julio too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ad24rouse said:

There's zero chance Matt Ryan would cost two 1st rounders. I don't think he would even cost one 1st rounder. The cost would probably be a 2nd or 3rd along with a 5th. I'm not advocating for the Colts to trade for Ryan. I'm just saying whoever said he would cost two 1's is WAY off. 

I concur. 

I think a 2nd rounder can get him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Yeah but he couldn't run out the clock with a 4 TD lead and 5 minutes left. :funny:

 

But seriously,  I've always thought he was pretty good. Just played mostly with a inferior organization. 

 

I'd rather go all in on a Top Rookie but wouldn't mind seeing matty ice come here..... and maybe his buddy Julio too.

I am fine with either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Yeah but he couldn't run out the clock with a 4 TD lead and 5 minutes left. :funny:

 

But seriously,  I've always thought he was pretty good. Just played mostly with a inferior organization. 

 

I'd rather go all in on a Top Rookie but wouldn't mind seeing matty ice come here..... and maybe his buddy Julio too.

Actually he did have a 28-3 lead but that was late in the 3rd Qtr with more like 20 minutes to go but to your point, Matt should've found a way to hold that lead.

  • Like 1
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...