Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Why did we start Wentz?


AustinnKaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Thunderbolt said:

But still, we should have given Eason a chance realizing the outcome was a big "L".  That one int in the last minute of the game last week should not been a reason to not start Eason over a gimpy QB.

The Colts weren’t even confident enough in Eason to be the backup over a guy who is on the practice squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do hope they keep Hundley at #2 spot in the depth chart if that is where he actually is in Reich's opinion.

 

Not that I think he's a good backup, but you usually keep your second best QB at the #2 spot in the depth chart last time I checked. You also typically give him reps through the scout team and the #2s throughout the season. If possible,, he would also get as many reps as possible with the starters in the offseason, especially if the starter is injured and gets injured often.. Kinda helps them be ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Thunderbolt said:

But still, we should have given Eason a chance realizing the outcome was a big "L".  That one int in the last minute of the game last week should not been a reason to not start Eason over a gimpy QB.

guess you don,t watch very close when Eason came into the game he was  scared like a deer in the headlights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jbaron04 said:

Why did he call 37 pass plays when the run was doing ok , one series we was killing them with run. Get down field and frank calls 3 straight passing plays 

because frank has faith in wentz.... lol lots of faith. 

 

even when Carson's ankles are begging for mercy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admire Wentz's courage and wanting to play in a big divisional game, but the ankle issues were clearly limiting what he could do.  No mobility and Tenn. applied heavy pressure all game.  If we could have kept Tannehill from running for 60 yards on 3 carries the outcome may have been different.  Who knows if Hundley could have done the same for us if he were chased out of the pocket.

 

There are lots more issues than just Wentz's ankles on this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Solon said:

He's still the best QB of the 3 despite hampering injuries. However, if Ehlinger was healthy, I do think he would've made the start. He's a game manager type of QB.

Ehlinger would have thrown a pick 6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Barry Sears said:

I admire Wentz's courage and wanting to play in a big divisional game, but the ankle issues were clearly limiting what he could do.  No mobility and Tenn. applied heavy pressure all game.  If we could have kept Tannehill from running for 60 yards on 3 carries the outcome may have been different.  Who knows if Hundley could have done the same for us if he were chased out of the pocket.

 

There are lots more issues than just Wentz's ankles on this team.

I could have called a better game. Would have handed to Wilkins Taylor and Hines and called a pass beyond 10 yards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stephen said:

I could have called a better game. Would have handed to Wilkins Taylor and Hines and called a pass beyond 10 yards

 

I agree we should have run the ball more, we were doing well in the run game.  Wentz had no time to throw deeper than 10 yards most of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, AustinnKaine said:

You could clearly see his mobility was limited. I counted 5 missed throws where the receiver had considerable space. 2 of those would have been TD passes. 

 

Also, it is well known that throwing starts with your feet. 

 

Do we seriously lack that much confidence in our backups? We scored 16 points. If a healthy Eason, cannot put up 16 points, why is he on the roster? Why did we let Brissett walk for 3 backups that we can't play? 

 

Please don't confuse this for a panic thread. I am well aware of the injuries, and what this team was facing before the season even started. I think Reich did a lot better with the play calls this week. 

 

 Nobody is going to be able to get through to you. Sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Fish said:

I don't get this it all. Wentz gave the team the best possible performance from the position group. He didn't turn the ball over and made some throws. I'm not saying "wow", but Brett Hundley? Nah..

 

I think the main point is this:

 

Our starting QB had two sprained ankles, and is still better than all of our backups.

 

Also, he has a contract designed for him to miss games and we still played him with two sprained ankles. 

 

that is an issue. The man clearly could barely move. A lot of this throws were off target. (probably because throwing starts with your feet)

 

There's no confusion Wentz is the best QB on the colts rn. The point is how ballard failed to aquire QB depth whilst simultaneously letting jacoby walk. Not sure where the confusion lies here. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

I think the main point is this:

 

Our starting QB had two sprained ankles, and is still better than all of our backups.

 

Also, he has a contract designed for him to miss games and we still played him with two sprained ankles. 

 

that is an issue. The man clearly could barely move. A lot of this throws were off target. (probably because throwing starts with your feet)

 

There's no confusion Wentz is the best QB on the colts rn. The point is how ballard failed to aquire QB depth whilst simultaneously letting jacoby walk. Not sure where the confusion lies here. 

Those are all fair points, and yet "why did we start Wentz" is pretty clear to me based on what the circumstance was yesterday, not what would have been better. Is/ought. 

I think the Brett Hundley thing is ridiculous to be honest. The brass needs to be making better assessments of those guys during the half of the year nothing else is going on (relatively speaking). Bringing in a warm body off the street for a few days of camp because "oh crap the backup might actually have to play" isn't awesome, I'm in agreement with that part of the story for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Fish said:

Those are all fair points, and yet "why did we start Wentz" is pretty clear to me based on what the circumstance was yesterday, not what would have been better. Is/ought. 

I think the Brett Hundley thing is ridiculous to be honest. The brass needs to be making better assessments of those guys during the half of the year nothing else is going on (relatively speaking). Bringing in a warm body off the street for a few days of camp because "oh crap the backup might actually have to play" isn't awesome, I'm in agreement with that part of the story for sure.

I can see Brett Hundley scoring 16 points. You can't?

 

It's not that Brett would've won us the game. It's that if Wentz was going to be so limited, why even start him? No one thought Wentz was gonna play on 2 sprained ankles. it's insane. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Those are all fair points, and yet "why did we start Wentz" is pretty clear to me based on what the circumstance was yesterday, not what would have been better. Is/ought. 

I think the Brett Hundley thing is ridiculous to be honest. The brass needs to be making better assessments of those guys during the half of the year nothing else is going on (relatively speaking). Bringing in a warm body off the street for a few days of camp because "oh crap the backup might actually have to play" isn't awesome, I'm in agreement with that part of the story for sure.

If they are that bad sign can Newton or someone to be the back up

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AustinnKaine said:

I can see Brett Hundley scoring 16 points. You can't?

 

It's not that Brett would've won us the game. It's that if Wentz was going to be so limited, why even start him? No one thought Wentz was gonna play on 2 sprained ankles. it's insane. 

The bigger issue is they threw 37 times with a hobbled QB. Should have ran 37 times

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

On any good team, the backup QB should have played. Apparently our backup QB wasn't even really a backup QB, so a hobbled Wentz had to play...

 

The Colts have had a lot of their supposed best/most important players (Nelson, Fisher, Leonard, Wentz, Kelly) play obviously hurt and not close to 100% because our depth is garbage. Long term not letting those guys heal, will just keep them at a  mediocre level  while prolonging how long they are hurt.

 

None of that makes sense. If we had someone compotent like Jacoby as the backup, I'd hope people who wanted Wentz out their with two bum legs would agree he shouldn't have played. Let's see how he response to the damage this week. He probably won't practice much now too until Friday, which also hurts the chemistry he needs to build with the offense. Its all around not a good look.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stephen said:

The bigger issue is they threw 37 times with a hobbled QB. Should have ran 37 times

Why is no one talking about the fact Reich stopped running Taylor? He was punching them in the mouth. Even hines got some good permiter runs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AustinnKaine said:

I can see Brett Hundley scoring 16 points. You can't?

 

It's not that Brett would've won us the game. It's that if Wentz was going to be so limited, why even start him? No one thought Wentz was gonna play on 2 sprained ankles. it's insane. 

I can see Brett Hundley not knowing the playbook, completing almost no passes, running around like a headless chicken, fumbling snaps- in my minds eye I think I see a guy who's been on the team for a few weeks and no track record of being very good anyway? I dunno- you could be right, but I have to think the judgement to play Wentz was made not of being stubborn or anything, it was really just who was going to do the best job. Honestly, the stat line he put up yesterday would have been mediocre, but not crazy bad if Pascal doesn't let a TD pass go right .. through... his... hands... ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

I can see Brett Hundley not knowing the playbook, completing almost no passes, running around like a headless chicken, fumbling snaps- in my minds eye I think I see a guy who's been on the team for a few weeks and no track record of being very good anyway? I dunno- you could be right, but I have to think the judgement to play Wentz was made not of being stubborn or anything, it was really just who was going to do the best job. Honestly, the stat line he put up yesterday would have been mediocre, but not crazy bad if Pascal doesn't let a TD pass go right .. through... his... hands... ugh.

Hundley has been with us for a while. 

 

I think he could score 16 points against the titans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were the 70% stipulation no factor in it, would I want Wentz out there this weekend?  I'm not sure.  He looked pretty bad and held the ball forever.  His legs are a big part of his game.  As a pocket, rhythm passer, he's not great.  With the 70% stipulation as a factor in it, I don't want him out there at all.  Normally I'm not playing for draft picks, but this is a special situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you imagine what this has done for the confidence of Eason.....he's basically been told he's worse than a QB who ranked worst in most measures in the NFL last year who has two sprained ankles.....I mean I kinda think Wentz could have rocked up in a wheelchair and still started! Hard to see how Eason will move on from that mentally....it must be obvious to him they have zero faith in his ability. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, #12. said:

Were the 70% stipulation no factor in it, would I want Wentz out there this weekend?  I'm not sure.  He looked pretty bad and held the ball forever.  His legs are a big part of his game.  As a pocket, rhythm passer, he's not great.  With the 70% stipulation as a factor in it, I don't want him out there at all.  Normally I'm not playing for draft picks, but this is a special situation.

When I was doing the count at home he consistently got past 4 seconds before throwing the ball. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irsay and Ballard need to look long and hard at the evaluation of Frank Reich and this coaching staff. The decision to play Wentz when he was clearly not able to move at all in the pocket, is a huge concern on their decision making. Also, the decision to not have a better backup QB is affecting this team right now and that's on Ballard and Reich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...