Irsay Says that He Wants the Colts to Have "All Chips In" for 2022! Can this be true?

[NewColtsFan]

18 hours ago, Rhodelesstraveled said:

SCOTUS says that is illegal.  The NFL should stay out of that decision.  

The NFL and the NFL PA says it’s illegal.   You can’t fine it cut a player based on his Vaxx status.   That’s to the best of my knowledge.  The two sides negotiated that. 

[ruf]

On 1/20/2022 at 8:04 AM, TimetobringDfence! said:

Isnt Q a free agent? 

yes he is still under contract

[TimetobringDfence!]

17 minutes ago, ruf said:

yes he is still under contract

We should consider him in a trade, I would only pull that card for RW3 or AR12...Kenny Moore, Quentin Nelson, Wentz, and a pick...

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

This is. Interesting thought and kind of smart if Bills really do this. Kind of the opposite of Colts with paying Moore and Grover.

 

 

[Los1sol]

On 1/20/2022 at 11:30 AM, buccolts said:

This is what I'm referring to:

No, he vowed, this wasn’t about the QB.

“It wasn’t directed at him,” Irsay said. “If I was directing it at him, I would’ve named him …

That just means he wasn’t ONLY talking about Wentz specifically but he definitely was included in the general group of people who didn’t have all their “chips in.”

[Los1sol]

On 1/20/2022 at 2:15 PM, BlackTiger said:

Anyone else think the all in comment could be about covid shots?  

 

They have to dance around this issue and we do too on the forums but it makes sense.  it would be nice if we could just talk about this directly 

Of course it includes the vaccination situation first and foremost. It’s the only logical explanation for the collapse at the end. Anyone who doesn’t want to acknowledge that is fooling themselves.

 

But it’s not just that, it’s also the OTA concessions the team made before preseason.

[CanuckColt]

Irsay is delusional if he thinks the Colts can fix all their problems in one year.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

55 minutes ago, CanuckColt said:

Irsay is delusional if he thinks the Colts can fix all their problems in one year.

Every team has a weakness. It’s how well coaches can scheme away from those. Then it takes getting lucky.

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, CanuckColt said:

Irsay is delusional if he thinks the Colts can fix all their problems in one year.

IDK.... I think a few players here and there, coupled with scheme tweaks on both sides of ball, could go a long way. 

 

I doubt we'll do what's needed scheme/coaching wise though... 

[GoColts8818]

4 hours ago, CanuckColt said:

Irsay is delusional if he thinks the Colts can fix all their problems in one year.

I don’t think Irsay or the Colts feel like they have as many holes as some here feel they do.

[CanuckColt]

17 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

I don’t think Irsay or the Colts feel like they have as many holes as some here feel they do.

Guys like Ballard saying he thinks the "WR room" is OK is just unfathomable...another guy who is delusional and ignoring the problems while he builds the team "his way".

 

[EastStreet]

I just want to know.

Is Irsay talking about Ruffles, Lay's, or Pringles?

[Dobbinblitz]

49 minutes ago, CanuckColt said:

Guys like Ballard saying he thinks the "WR room" is OK is just unfathomable...another guy who is delusional and ignoring the problems while he builds the team "his way".

 

Ballard’s WR comment was a head shaker unless he was just posturing, and really believes otherwise. The Colts used 15 million of Cap space on eight receivers this past season including TY.
 Nor sure if Ballard’s stated philosophy of paying “GOOD” players regardless of position is not restricting the ability to make major moves at impact positions. I believe he was voted the top GM by Agents - which may not be a good thing.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 hour ago, CanuckColt said:

Guys like Ballard saying he thinks the "WR room" is OK is just unfathomable...another guy who is delusional and ignoring the problems while he builds the team "his way".

 

Oh they will just keep blaming everything on the QB and not fixing anything. Then we start the QB cycle again when it fails. The only good news is there is going to be 3 spots maybe on offense this year for him to fix it.

[ChuggaBeer]

19 minutes ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

Oh they will just keep blaming everything on the QB and not fixing anything. Then we start the QB cycle again when it fails. The only good news is there is going to be 3 spots maybe on offense this year for him to fix it.

Rivers did pretty well with the same receiving corps        Maybe go Watch the Warner break down again.  and see how many of these "not so good" WR were actually open.

 

I'm not saying we shouldnt add one or two.  But it's not as bad as many of you think.   

The receiver can't make plays if he doesn't get the ball

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 hour ago, ChuggaBeer said:

Rivers did pretty well with the same receiving corps        Maybe go Watch the Warner break down again.  and see how many of these "not so good" WR were actually open.

 

I'm not saying we shouldnt add one or two.  But it's not as bad as many of you think.   

The receiver can't make plays if he doesn't get the ball

I am not saying he was great. I am simply saying giving up more assets unless it’s for one in the draft id just not smart. Get him more weapons that fit his game and see what happens. At least we have all our picks for the  draft. I am tired of bandaids for a year.

[Moosejawcolt]

2 hours ago, Dobbinblitz said:

Ballard’s WR comment was a head shaker unless he was just posturing, and really believes otherwise. The Colts used 15 million of Cap space on eight receivers this past season including TY.
 Nor sure if Ballard’s stated philosophy of paying “GOOD” players regardless of position is not restricting the ability to make major moves at impact positions. I believe he was voted the top GM by Agents - which may not be a good thing.

Ballard's way of building a team is antiquated and so is the defensive scheme that he loves so much.

[EastStreet]

2 hours ago, ChuggaBeer said:

Rivers did pretty well with the same receiving corps        Maybe go Watch the Warner break down again.  and see how many of these "not so good" WR were actually open.

 

I'm not saying we shouldnt add one or two.  But it's not as bad as many of you think.   

The receiver can't make plays if he doesn't get the ball

Rivers had a top 5 pass pro line in 2020. In 2019 and prior, when he had bad OLs, he was pretty mediocre..... 

Wentz had a bottom 3 pass pro line in 2021. So not the best comp (Rivers 2020 vs Wentz 2021).

 

Rivers also had TY, his top target, for 15 games. Wentz had him for only 9 games, and his target decrease and snaps were lower than even the 9 game stat would indicate. So again, not really an honest or similar comp. 

[boo2202]

On 1/20/2022 at 12:08 PM, NewColtsFan said:

Gee, what a surprise….   I wrote about that before the 2021 season even started.   So, late August, early September.   This was not hard to see coming….

Wow that one would be really hard to predict

[Hawkeyecolt]

42 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Rivers had a top 5 pass pro line in 2020. In 2019 and prior, when he had bad OLs, he was pretty mediocre..... 

Wentz had a bottom 3 pass pro line in 2021. So not the best comp (Rivers 2020 vs Wentz 2021).

 

Rivers also had TY, his top target, for 15 games. Wentz had him for only 9 games, and his target decrease and snaps were lower than even the 9 game stat would indicate. So again, not really an honest or similar comp. 

Wentz had bottom 3 pass pro partly because he holds the ball too long. 
 

When Ballard says he thinks the WR room is good. He was clearly stating Wentz isn’t hitting open receivers. He's not saying it can’t be upgraded. He backs that up with declining yardage and YAC by receivers playing with Wentz. Warner’s video shows the same thing. If people think the Jax game is an anomaly they’re fools. Check downs and underneath routes were open all season long.  Ballard and the coaches see the same type of film that Warner watched. I fully expect Ballard to add to the WR room. What he was saying was an indictment on the QB play. 

[ChuggaBeer]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeyecolt said:

Wentz had bottom 3 pass pro partly because he holds the ball too long. 
 

When Ballard says he thinks the WR room is good. He was clearly stating Wentz isn’t hitting open receivers. He's not saying it can’t be upgraded. He backs that up with declining yardage and YAC by receivers playing with Wentz. Warner’s video shows the same thing. If people think the Jax game is an anomaly they’re fools. Check downs and underneath routes were open all season long.  Ballard and the coaches see the same type of film that Warner watched. I fully expect Ballard to add to the WR room. What he was saying was an indictment on the QB play. 

Well said

[boo2202]

On 1/19/2022 at 3:41 PM, Indeee said:

At face value it could be about attitude as @Supermansuggested or a combination of attitude and strategy. Irsay is NO fool. He might have at times done foolish things however he understands as do a lot of other aging owners that Trophies need to come sooner than later, if only because they are running out of earthly time. Regardless of whether the fan base or a portion of the fan base would agree, it might almost be time to throw all those chips (future 1's) into the pot to acquire certain talent through the draft or via FA. Maybe not in 2022, but soon. 

 

The notion that any fan not wanting this method for fear that the future of the team would suffer and still want the "same old" approach each year that results in suffering anyway, to me is weird. It's a gamble for sure, but so is anything in life where an outcome awaits. At some point you have to go after that trophy without being entirely dumb. 

 

Mortgaging future picks on a QB as an example that is talented enough to win you titles or place you in back end of playoffs every year is worth it, especially if the non-title years give the team first rounders in the late part of the draft each year.

 

I guess we shall see what transpires. 

Finally someone gets it. Very well said. At some point you call your shot. 

[Hawkeyecolt]

On 1/21/2022 at 11:36 AM, NewColtsFan said:

The NFL and the NFL PA says it’s illegal.   You can’t fine it cut a player based on his Vaxx status.   That’s to the best of my knowledge.  The two sides negotiated that. 

When re-shaping the roster they know damn well who is vaccinated and who isn’t.  They know Fisher, Kelly, Pascal, Wentz, and TY are unvaccinated. We don’t know what the guidelines will be next season nor what strain of the virus will be around. If I’m a GM and I can upgrade my roster by ridding myself of marginal players who are unvaccinated for vaccinated players Im doing it. 
 

The Colts had a bunch of key players miss 10 games for being close contacts right before the start of the season. They started 0-3.  They had a bunch test positive right before their 0-2 collapse. It might be a coincidence but it couldn’t have helped and the front office knows it.  If you’re Leonard and Nelson they can get away with it.  If you’re Fisher and Pascal you can be replaced. 

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeyecolt said:

Wentz had bottom 3 pass pro partly because he holds the ball too long. 
 

When Ballard says he thinks the WR room is good. He was clearly stating Wentz isn’t hitting open receivers. He's not saying it can’t be upgraded. He backs that up with declining yardage and YAC by receivers playing with Wentz. Warner’s video shows the same thing. If people think the Jax game is an anomaly they’re fools. Check downs and underneath routes were open all season long.  Ballard and the coaches see the same type of film that Warner watched. I fully expect Ballard to add to the WR room. What he was saying was an indictment on the QB play. 

 

Sorry, but no. PFF grades OL on individual assignment, and performance within that assignment. 

 

I've also posted time to throw comps, and Wentz wasn't horrible. 

 

A quick QB can help and OL look better than what it truly is, but a slow QB doesn't "hurt" an OLman's grade. 

 

For instance, Fisher was just bad against bull and wide rushes. A quick QB might have made him look better (less sacks attributed to him), but Fisher plain sucked a lot regardless of Wentz's time to throw. 

 

And sorry, but Ballard is GM speaking... If he were honest instead of GM speaking, he'd say the following

• Our OL sucked. It was a mistake to sign Fisher, and Kelly has taken steps back two years in a row.
• We were without a true Z for half the season (and he's aging and near retirement), and without a true slot for the entire season.
• Our D, while great at turnovers, was mediocre to bad in most other areas. 

You simply can't pass the red face test if you think Pascal is a legit #2, or even just a legit starting slot. If he were, teams would have given up a 2nd rounder for him (the tender we placed on him). They didn't. And a second rounder is absolutely cheap for a true #2, or even #3 WR. But he's not. He's an over achieving tweener that works hard, but is simply a depth guy. 

 

[Hawkeyecolt]

9 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

Sorry, but no. PFF grades OL on individual assignment, and performance within that assignment. 

 

I've also posted time to throw comps, and Wentz wasn't horrible. 

 

A quick QB can help and OL look better than what it truly is, but a slow QB doesn't "hurt" an OLman's grade. 

 

For instance, Fisher was just bad against bull and wide rushes. A quick QB might have made him look better (less sacks attributed to him), but Fisher plain sucked a lot regardless of Wentz's time to throw. 

 

And sorry, but Ballard is GM speaking... If he were honest instead of GM speaking, he'd say the following

• Our OL sucked. It was a mistake to sign Fisher, and Kelly has taken steps back two years in a row.
• We were without a true Z for half the season (and he's aging and near retirement), and without a true slot for the entire season.
• Our D, while great at turnovers, was mediocre to bad in most other areas. 

You simply can't pass the red face test if you think Pascal is a legit #2, or even just a legit starting slot. If he were, teams would have given up a 2nd rounder for him (the tender we placed on him). They didn't. And a second rounder is absolutely cheap for a true #2, or even #3 WR. But he's not. He's an over achieving tweener that works hard, but is simply a depth guy. 

 

Fisher was bad.  Kelly was mediocre.  Pascal isn’t a number 2 but combine that with an indecisive QB who can’t read defenses and they all look worse. 
 

When a team can run the ball the QB should be able to do damn near anything. Teams have to commit to stopping the run which makes it easier on the QB.  Our QB got worse. He had JT, Hines, Pittman, TY, Pascal, Doyle, MAC on the field down the stretch.  Great group? No but good enough for Wentz to make plays with teams playing the run. I’m not a Pascal guy but he had over 600 yards with Rivers.  Take the layups was a good comment by Ballard. 

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, Hawkeyecolt said:

Fisher was bad.  Kelly was mediocre.  Pascal isn’t a number 2 but combine that with an indecisive QB who can’t read defenses and they all look worse. 
 

When a team can run the ball the QB should be able to do damn near anything. Teams have to commit to stopping the run which makes it easier on the QB.  Our QB got worse. He had JT, Hines, Pittman, TY, Pascal, Doyle, MAC on the field down the stretch.  Great group? No but good enough for Wentz to make plays with teams playing the run. I’m not a Pascal guy but he had over 600 yards with Rivers.  Take the layups was a good comment by Ballard. 

 

When you are an overly short possession passing team, and run a lot, Ds don't defend the entire field. They play up. Running a lot only helps if your scheme takes enough deep shots to make teams defend the entire field. We didn't. So DBs and LBs congest the short field, where we passed 95+% of the time. Combine that with a crap OL and WRs that don't get great separation, and it's just not going to be good. 

 

Like I said, go back and look at Rivers in LAC when he had better WRs, and a bad OL... he was worse... 

 

 

[ChuggaBeer]

50 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

When you are an overly short possession passing team, and run a lot, Ds don't defend the entire field. They play up. Running a lot only helps if your scheme takes enough deep shots to make teams defend the entire field. We didn't. So DBs and LBs congest the short field, where we passed 95+% of the time. Combine that with a crap OL and WRs that don't get great separation, and it's just not going to be good. 

 

Like I said, go back and look at Rivers in LAC when he had better WRs, and a bad OL... he was worse... 

 

 

1st of all.  I HATED Rivers when he was with the Chargers. In my mind a total *

 

But I learned to love him when he was here.  Not a bandwagon decision.  He IS THAT GOOD!!!    

 

If you go back and 'just watch the Warner breakdown.   If Rivers had been the QB in that game it would have been a blow out And it ABSOLUTELY would have been the same in every game all season.    Seriously If Rivers were the QB. I don't see a game we couldn't have won and probably would have won.  

 

I'll go on the record since I am a new poster here (long time lurker). I was a Wentz to Indy supporter. Thought the move was perfect.   

 

BUT.  Wentz is the problem for the Oline issues. and the WR issues  So I am sure Ballard sees what Warner saw    and He sees these receivers doing their jobs and sees that the issues are not with the receivers entirely.   

 

Do we need an upgrade. YES. all teams do.  Is WR one of the bigger worries this off season probably not top 3 

 

TE?   Yea I'll give you that.  Should be top 2 priority

 

Please don't use your stats to say Mo is the answer.  He's NOT.  I have more hope in Granson than Mo 

 

Stats are misleading so please don't quote PFF  in a response to me on this 

 

 

[EastStreet]

25 minutes ago, ChuggaBeer said:

1st of all.  I HATED Rivers when he was with the Chargers. In my mind a total *

 

But I learned to love him when he was here.  Not a bandwagon decision.  He IS THAT GOOD!!!    

 

If you go back and 'just watch the Warner breakdown.   If Rivers had been the QB in that game it would have been a blow out And it ABSOLUTELY would have been the same in every game all season.    Seriously If Rivers were the QB. I don't see a game we couldn't have won and probably would have won.  

 

I'll go on the record since I am a new poster here (long time lurker). I was a Wentz to Indy supporter. Thought the move was perfect.   

 

BUT.  Wentz is the problem for the Oline issues. and the WR issues  So I am sure Ballard sees what Warner saw    and He sees these receivers doing their jobs and sees that the issues are not with the receivers entirely.   

 

Do we need an upgrade. YES. all teams do.  Is WR one of the bigger worries this off season probably not top 3 

 

TE?   Yea I'll give you that.  Should be top 2 priority

 

Please don't use your stats to say Mo is the answer.  He's NOT.  I have more hope in Granson than Mo 

 

Stats are misleading so please don't quote PFF  in a response to me on this 

 

 

 

Sorry. I disagree. Rivers was mediocre to bad when he had a bad OL. And our OL was bad last year. He would have been bad if still here lol... 

 

Ignoring history, and projecting a 2020 Rivers like performance behind our 2021 OL, is just dishonest lol... Rivers had much much better skill players (Allen, Williams, Henry, Ekeler) in 2019, but was bad. He had 23 TDs and 20 INTs.... 

 

Sorry, but it doesn't pass the logic test... 

[ChuggaBeer]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

Sorry. I disagree. Rivers was mediocre to bad when he had a bad OL. And our OL was bad last year. He would have been bad if still here lol... 

 

Ignoring history, and projecting a 2020 Rivers like performance behind our 2021 OL, is just dishonest lol... Rivers had much much better skill players (Allen, Williams, Henry, Ekeler) in 2019, but was bad. He had 23 TDs and 20 INTs.... 

 

Sorry, but it doesn't pass the logic test... 

So you went back and looked at PFF before answering didnt you?  OK maybe you have it memorized by now.

 

Anyway You are projecting 2019 Rivers to the 2021 projections?   SERIOUSLY?    How'd he do last yr 2020 with  basically this same group 

 

Don't want to do this    But if you argue that Rivers would have  not flourished this yr.   I will lose all respect for your opinions 

 

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, ChuggaBeer said:

So you went back and looked at PFF before answering didnt you?  OK maybe you have it memorized by now.

 

Anyway You are projecting 2019 Rivers to the 2021 projections?   SERIOUSLY?    How'd he do last yr 2020 with  basically this same group 

 

Don't want to do this    But if you argue that Rivers would have  not flourished this yr.   I will lose all respect for your opinions 

 

 

It's simple. Rivers is historically good when he has a good OL. Rivers is historically bad/mediocre when he a bad OL.

It's no mystery. The stats and grades are all out there. 

To think Rivers would somehow magically be good for once behind a bad OL is just dishonest based on all the history we have.

 

I don't really need respect lol.. I'm factual and logical. 

 

 

[ChuggaBeer]

13 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

It's simple. Rivers is historically good when he has a good OL. Rivers is historically bad/mediocre when he a bad OL.

It's no mystery. The stats and grades are all out there. 

To think Rivers would somehow magically be good for once behind a bad OL is just dishonest based on all the history we have.

 

I don't really need respect lol.. I'm factual and logical. 

 

 

So you STILL didn't get it.    Leave the stats alone       And lets just use the Warner breakdown.   Because for me   WAY BETTER than anything you can copy and paste from PFF  Which I hate 

 

THAT GAME:    Would Rivers have seen all of those open options?  Would his decisions have been different?  

 

Would Peyton have seen anything different 

 

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, ChuggaBeer said:

So you STILL didn't get it.    Leave the stats alone       And lets just use the Warner breakdown.   Because for me   WAY BETTER than anything you can copy and paste from PFF  Which I hate 

 

THAT GAME:    Would Rivers have seen all of those open options?  Would his decisions have been different?  

 

Would Peyton have seen anything different 

 

 

I'm using Rivers simple performance numbers/stats over the years. It's really nothing do with PFF. Only PFF use is OL grades.

 

But hey, if you want to discard Rivers' history, and believe in magic, be my guest. 

 

I'm a Rivers fan. I wish we would have brought him back. But his track record is simply poor behind bad OLs. Warner's breakdown of a totally different player doesn't magically change Rivers lol. Sure, he might have connected more in the short passing game, but he would have been sacked more, been INT'd more, and would not have extended plays like Wentz did. I know Rivers' history well. I'm guessing you do not. 

 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Hawkeyecolt said:

When re-shaping the roster they know damn well who is vaccinated and who isn’t.  They know Fisher, Kelly, Pascal, Wentz, and TY are unvaccinated. We don’t know what the guidelines will be next season nor what strain of the virus will be around. If I’m a GM and I can upgrade my roster by ridding myself of marginal players who are unvaccinated for vaccinated players Im doing it. 
 

The Colts had a bunch of key players miss 10 games for being close contacts right before the start of the season. They started 0-3.  They had a bunch test positive right before their 0-2 collapse. It might be a coincidence but it couldn’t have helped and the front office knows it.  If you’re Leonard and Nelson they can get away with it.  If you’re Fisher and Pascal you can be replaced. 

Players missed 10 games each due to Covid?  Am I reading you right?    To the best of my knowledge, I believe this is false. 
 

I don’t believe any player missed more than two.   This year, and maybe even in the 2020 season as well.  
 

As you noted, the top players can get away with it.   The rest, maybe, or maybe not.   This will be a fascinating off-season to watch for many reasons….

[ChuggaBeer]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

I'm using Rivers simple performance numbers/stats over the years. It's really nothing do with PFF. Only PFF use is OL grades.

 

But hey, if you want to discard Rivers' history, and believe in magic, be my guest. 

 

I'm a Rivers fan. I wish we would have brought him back. But his track record is simply poor behind bad OLs. Warner's breakdown of a totally different player doesn't magically change Rivers lol. Sure, he might have connected more in the short passing game, but he would have been sacked more, been INT'd more, and would not have extended plays like Wentz did. I know Rivers' history well. I'm guessing you do not. 

 

Ok.   So track record.  I ONLY want to go back to last yr Same offense.    

 

If you want track record.   Replace Manning instead of Wentz   Would Manning had faired better?

 

I love Peyton and I am sure you do too.   But football intelligence. maybe not that far removed.

 

And as far as watching Rivers.  I'm probably twice your age so Yea.  I've watched rooted against and HATED him BUT he is one of the smartest QBs I have ever seen.    

[Solid84]

7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

Sorry, but no. PFF grades OL on individual assignment, and performance within that assignment. 

 

I've also posted time to throw comps, and Wentz wasn't horrible. 

 

A quick QB can help and OL look better than what it truly is, but a slow QB doesn't "hurt" an OLman's grade. 

 

For instance, Fisher was just bad against bull and wide rushes. A quick QB might have made him look better (less sacks attributed to him), but Fisher plain sucked a lot regardless of Wentz's time to throw. 

 

And sorry, but Ballard is GM speaking... If he were honest instead of GM speaking, he'd say the following

• Our OL sucked. It was a mistake to sign Fisher, and Kelly has taken steps back two years in a row.
• We were without a true Z for half the season (and he's aging and near retirement), and without a true slot for the entire season.
• Our D, while great at turnovers, was mediocre to bad in most other areas. 

You simply can't pass the red face test if you think Pascal is a legit #2, or even just a legit starting slot. If he were, teams would have given up a 2nd rounder for him (the tender we placed on him). They didn't. And a second rounder is absolutely cheap for a true #2, or even #3 WR. But he's not. He's an over achieving tweener that works hard, but is simply a depth guy. 

 

I agree the Oline had huge issues (and moves Ballard made were a huge part of this), our WR group could use an upgrade, Hines only had a little more than half the touches he did in 2020 and our defense was mediocre or worse in any stat not called turnovers.

 

BUT, Wentz consistently overlooked open receivers or completely missed them. He had tunnelvision and made bad mistakes several times through the season, There's a reason Wentz had a lower EPA than Brissett (when he was with the Colts) and he doesn't figure in the top half of QBs in NGS' Passing Score. Our receiver also played significantly better with Rivers.

 

My guess is he will play for us next season. but if he doesn't improve drastically it'll be his last season as a starter for any team.

[TimetobringDfence!]

On 1/21/2022 at 3:52 PM, TimetobringDfence! said:

We should consider him in a trade, I would only pull that card for RW3 or AR12...Kenny Moore, Quentin Nelson, Wentz, and a pick...

I wouldn't trade for A12 at this point he is getting up there, and failed to beat 49ers with Adams.. kinda sad...

[TimetobringDfence!]

5 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

I'm using Rivers simple performance numbers/stats over the years. It's really nothing do with PFF. Only PFF use is OL grades.

 

But hey, if you want to discard Rivers' history, and believe in magic, be my guest. 

 

I'm a Rivers fan. I wish we would have brought him back. But his track record is simply poor behind bad OLs. Warner's breakdown of a totally different player doesn't magically change Rivers lol. Sure, he might have connected more in the short passing game, but he would have been sacked more, been INT'd more, and would not have extended plays like Wentz did. I know Rivers' history well. I'm guessing you do not. 

 

Rivers won games with presnap awareness and adjustments. He also has a nice quick release and used Hines and checkdowns way more than CW. Carson tried the deep ball to often and our line can pass block good enough for that...

[richard pallo]

10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

Sorry, but no. PFF grades OL on individual assignment, and performance within that assignment. 

 

I've also posted time to throw comps, and Wentz wasn't horrible. 

 

A quick QB can help and OL look better than what it truly is, but a slow QB doesn't "hurt" an OLman's grade. 

 

For instance, Fisher was just bad against bull and wide rushes. A quick QB might have made him look better (less sacks attributed to him), but Fisher plain sucked a lot regardless of Wentz's time to throw. 

 

And sorry, but Ballard is GM speaking... If he were honest instead of GM speaking, he'd say the following

• Our OL sucked. It was a mistake to sign Fisher, and Kelly has taken steps back two years in a row.
• We were without a true Z for half the season (and he's aging and near retirement), and without a true slot for the entire season.
• Our D, while great at turnovers, was mediocre to bad in most other areas. 

You simply can't pass the red face test if you think Pascal is a legit #2, or even just a legit starting slot. If he were, teams would have given up a 2nd rounder for him (the tender we placed on him). They didn't. And a second rounder is absolutely cheap for a true #2, or even #3 WR. But he's not. He's an over achieving tweener that works hard, but is simply a depth guy. 

 

Ballard was probably told by Irsay to bring TY back which stopped him in his tracks to add his replacement in FA.  

[EastStreet]

22 hours ago, ChuggaBeer said:

Ok.   So track record.  I ONLY want to go back to last yr Same offense.    

 

If you want track record.   Replace Manning instead of Wentz   Would Manning had faired better?

 

I love Peyton and I am sure you do too.   But football intelligence. maybe not that far removed.

 

And as far as watching Rivers.  I'm probably twice your age so Yea.  I've watched rooted against and HATED him BUT he is one of the smartest QBs I have ever seen.    

Doubt you are twice my age. You'd be over 100....

 

Peyton, probably a top 2 QB ever, sure he would have done better.

 

But Rivers, no, based on his history with poor OLs.

 

The underlying point here is that most QBs, perform poorly behind bad pass pro OLs. And ours was ranked 3rd worst. Playing what-ifs with a HoFer like Manning doesn't move the needle. Thinking a statue QB like Rivers would magically play well given his history just isn't reality. In short, very hard to grade any QB honestly when he has the 30th ranked OL. And harder when the WR group is mediocre/poor. 

[EastStreet]

17 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I agree the Oline had huge issues (and moves Ballard made were a huge part of this), our WR group could use an upgrade, Hines only had a little more than half the touches he did in 2020 and our defense was mediocre or worse in any stat not called turnovers.

 

BUT, Wentz consistently overlooked open receivers or completely missed them. He had tunnelvision and made bad mistakes several times through the season, There's a reason Wentz had a lower EPA than Brissett (when he was with the Colts) and he doesn't figure in the top half of QBs in NGS' Passing Score. Our receiver also played significantly better with Rivers.

 

My guess is he will play for us next season. but if he doesn't improve drastically it'll be his last season as a starter for any team.

 

Again... OL was 30th this year.... Brissett... He had a top 5 OL when he was here.

So any comp really isn't accurate. 

 

Wentz made a lot of mistakes and needs to work on several things. I'm not sold on him being anything for us. But at the same time, a 30th ranked OL and probably similar ranked WR group, simply will make it hard on most QBs. You can sometimes make it work with one of those two units being bad. Not both.