Chris Ballard and Frank Reich confident Matt Ryan can stop Colts’ QB carousel.

[stitches]

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

It’s my guess that this post is not going to age well.    About the only thing to agree with us that we won’t use a high luck on a quarterback in 23.   Honestly I don’t think we will draft one with any pick.  

 

In what way will it not age well? Are you expecting us to contend this year? And if not this year, do you expect Ryan-lead Colts to have a better shot next year? My main frustration is with Ballard's reluctance to go get us our next franchise QB, not with him getting Ryan. I love him getting Ryan, just it would be so much better if he actually tried to solve the long-term question ALONG WITH having Ryan for a year or two. 

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

But I think everything could change in ‘24.  That’s when I think we get serious about finding our long term replacement.  And that could get bumped to ‘25, depending on how the years play out.  

In 24 we will sign 36 year old Kirk Cousins and then in 26 we will go for 38 year old Ryan Tannehill. Because of course we will. 

[csmopar]

10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

If his career goes as expected, he'll be in the 2026 draft. 

Hard telling where he ends up in the NFL. Broncos and Saints I'm sure we'll get zillion mentions. 

And Colts lol. Maybe the Giants lol

[richard pallo]

9 hours ago, stitches said:

In what way will it not age well? Are you expecting us to contend this year? And if not this year, do you expect Ryan-lead Colts to have a better shot next year? My main frustration is with Ballard's reluctance to go get us our next franchise QB, not with him getting Ryan. I love him getting Ryan, just it would be so much better if he actually tried to solve the long-term question ALONG WITH having Ryan for a year or two. 

In 24 we will sign 36 year old Kirk Cousins and then in 26 we will go for 38 year old Ryan Tannehill. Because of course we will. 

I think Ballard just acquired our next franchise quarterback.  He could easily be our guy for the next half decade and win us a Super Bowl or two along the way and get himself a bust in Canton too.  I really like our chances for success riding this train.    Every move we make should be to help Ryan and the team win now.  I intend to enjoy the ride realizing any serious move to draft a young quarterback is most likely years from now.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Im not sure of your meaning….    So I’ll try to say this as simply and straightforward as I can… .

 

Hypothetically, if Ryan only plays 2 years, we might indeed want to re-sign Foles for 2 more years after that. 
 

But….  
 

We’d only be signing Foles to continue to be our backup.    We would NOT be signing him to be our starter.    100 percent.   

Maybe maybe  not. Depends on the vet QB on the market at that time or even who we have drafted.

[Solid84]

10 hours ago, stitches said:

In what way will it not age well? Are you expecting us to contend this year? And if not this year, do you expect Ryan-lead Colts to have a better shot next year? My main frustration is with Ballard's reluctance to go get us our next franchise QB, not with him getting Ryan. I love him getting Ryan, just it would be so much better if he actually tried to solve the long-term question ALONG WITH having Ryan for a year or two. 

In 24 we will sign 36 year old Kirk Cousins and then in 26 we will go for 38 year old Ryan Tannehill. Because of course we will. 

I think, if Ryan plays well this year and he keeps playing at a high level for the next few years, Ballard will go all in on him and build around him.

 

I've wanted Ballard to draft a QB high since Luck retired, but I'm not sure he will until Ryan retires or is unable to play at a desired level. If Ryan keeps going for 3-5 years for us then us drafting a QB will probably signal rebuild time.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I think, if Ryan plays well this year and he keeps playing at a high level for the next few years, Ballard will go all in on him and build around him.

 

I've wanted Ballard to draft a QB high since Luck retired, but I'm not sure he will until Ryan retires or is unable to play at a desired level. If Ryan keeps going for 3-5 years for us then us drafting a QB will probably signal rebuild time.

He kind of has went all in this year.

[Solid84]

1 minute ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

He kind of has went all in this year.

Definitely close to if he hasn't, but I feel he would've gotten a surefire WR if he really believed we were only Ryan and Ngakoue away from contending for the SB.

 

We have a few unknowns this year like LT, WR room, TE room and defensive scheme. If we prove to be a fringe contender this year he'll go all in next year I think.

[stitches]

10 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

I think, if Ryan plays well this year and he keeps playing at a high level for the next few years, Ballard will go all in on him and build around him.

 

I've wanted Ballard to draft a QB high since Luck retired, but I'm not sure he will until Ryan retires or is unable to play at a desired level. If Ryan keeps going for 3-5 years for us then us drafting a QB will probably signal rebuild time.

Agreed. This is exactly what will happen. Ballard has already expressed his aversion to drafting a QB and his fear that it could lead to his job being in danger. I expect him to continue seeking vet QBs even after Ryan retires.

[2006Coltsbestever]

The problem with some wanting us to draft a QB (especially in 2022) just to be drafting one is, we are in win now mode. If we were a team that stunk and had a top 3 pick I would be ok with looking at QB's in most drafts if there are 2 or 3 really great prospects. Matt Ryan was by far the best choice we could've ended up with for this season. The QB's in this years draft are MEH! There were only 3 QB's that were game changers that were a possibility for us, those were Rodgers, Wilson, and Ryan. I knew there was no chance we were getting Rodgers, GB was going to do everything in their power to keep him. We would have had to give up the farm for Wilson, a lot of draft picks, that wasn't happening, so that left Ryan luckily. We traded a 3rd for Ryan which was highway robbery and a huge fleece.

 

The QB's in the draft, QB's like Baker Mayfield, Marcus Mariota, and Mitchell Trubisky would have had us at 8-9, maybe 9-8 just like Wentz did. That is the worse position to be in! I would rather be real competitive and try and make a SB run (win 11 or 12 games) or stink to get a top 3 pick. 

[NewColtsFan]

41 minutes ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

Maybe maybe  not. Depends on the vet QB on the market at that time or even who we have drafted.

Goodness gracious.   
 

There will be a veteran quarterback better than Nick Foles.   That’s not even hard to predict.  
 

If Foles wasn’t good enough to be our starter THIS YEAR, (and he wasn’t) how is he going to be good enough in 2 years?    3 years?     
 

Answer:   He’s not. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The problem with some wanting us to draft a QB (especially in 2022) just to be drafting one is, we are in win now mode. If we were a team that stunk and had a top 3 pick I would be ok with looking at QB's in most drafts if there are 2 or 3 really great prospects. Matt Ryan was by far the best choice we could've ended up with for this season. The QB's in this years draft are MEH! There were only 3 QB's that were game changers that were a possibility for us, those were Rodgers, Wilson, and Ryan. I knew there was no chance we were getting Rodgers, GB was going to do everything in their power to keep him. We would have had to give up the farm for Wilson, a lot of draft picks, that wasn't happening, so that left Ryan luckily. We traded a 3rd for Ryan which was highway robbery and a huge fleece.

 

The QB's in the draft, QB's like Baker Mayfield, Marcus Mariota, and Mitchell Trubisky would have had us at 8-9, maybe 9-8 just like Wentz did. That is the worse position to be in! I would rather be real competitive and try and make a SB run (win 11 or 12 games) or stink to get a top 3 pick. 

I will follow this up with, probably had we drafted a QB this season and started him, we actually would have been lucky to win 6 games and that is with the best RB in the league. We aren't wasting JT's career. Starting a rookie would have been a massive mistake considering the draft class.

 

Ballard deserves a raise for not taking a QB in this past draft. I think we can get 2 good years out Ryan, maybe 3 so if that is the case I would keep building around him for 2 or 3 years, let JT do his thing, and keep improving the defense. Ryan just turned 37 which really isn't that old. Good to great QB's that have stayed healthy can play until they are 40 now days.

[Solid84]

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The problem with some wanting us to draft a QB (especially in 2022) just to be drafting one is, we are in win now mode. If we were a team that stunk and had a top 3 pick I would be ok with looking at QB's in most drafts if there are 2 or 3 really great prospects. Matt Ryan was by far the best choice we could've ended up with for this season. The QB's in this years draft are MEH! There were only 3 QB's that were game changers that were a possibility for us, those were Rodgers, Wilson, and Ryan. I knew there was no chance we were getting Rodgers, GB was going to do everything in their power to keep him. We would have had to give up the farm for Wilson, a lot of draft picks, that wasn't happening, so that left Ryan luckily. We traded a 3rd for Ryan which was highway robbery and a huge fleece.

 

The QB's in the draft, QB's like Baker Mayfield, Marcus Mariota, and Mitchell Trubisky would have had us at 8-9, maybe 9-8 just like Wentz did. That is the worse position to be in! I would rather be real competitive and try and make a SB run (win 11 or 12 games) or stink to get a top 3 pick. 

A team on the cusp drafting a QB can be a huge asset because now they have a franchise QB on a rookie deal. Look at the Chiefs.

 

I'm not saying draft a QB for the sake of drafting a QB, and I agree this year wasn't the year to do it, but finding a franchise QB in the draft isn't an exact science and you have to start throwing darts to even have a chance of getting a hit.

 

Rodgers was a HUGE no thanks from me. He basically wanted to be the highest paid player, which ment they couldn't afford Adams. They won't win another SB while they have Rodgers on their pay roll - you heard it here first. Wilson was never an option because of his wife. We were lucky to gte Ryan. One, we got extremely lucky he was available and two, rumour was Ballard was offering a 4th until Irsay said to get the deal done.

[EastStreet]

13 hours ago, csmopar said:

And Colts lol. Maybe the Giants lol

Yup, all will be mentioned. 

I'm sure if the family could pick, likely Denver lol. 

Long time away, so the best situation for him likely be very different that the environment today. 

[Superman]

On 8/6/2022 at 9:28 AM, stitches said:

Agreed. This is exactly what will happen. Ballard has already expressed his aversion to drafting a QB and his fear that it could lead to his job being in danger. I expect him to continue seeking vet QBs even after Ryan retires.

 

I think this is a major mischaracterization of Ballard's statements.

[stitches]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think this is a major mischaracterization of Ballard's statements.

I mean he's said it several times already... and he's refused to invest heavily into drafting a QB several times already. I'd take him at his word that is supported by his actions. 

In what way is it a mischaracterization? You can argue the finer details but that's essentially what he's saying... 

 

[w87r]

Definitely think its a mischaracterization, maybe not major, but that's all semantics.. He has already drafted 2 QBs(so he doesn't have an aversion), was more about making a big costly move up in the 1st and getting it wrong, I think. Which he is right, for a team on the cusp of contending, to roll the dice on an unproven player that cost a lot of draft capital, is dangerous. 

 

Which doesn't mean he wouldn't take one or that he hates it. Just that it has to be the right guy and he isn't just going to do it because it would get us/media off his back. 

 

I suspect sometime over next couple years he will look into drafting the long term guy of the future and let him learn from Ryan/Foles.

[stitches]

33 minutes ago, w87r said:

Definitely think its a mischaracterization, maybe not major, but that's all semantics.. He has already drafted 2 QBs(so he doesn't have an aversion), was more about making a big costly move up in the 1st and getting it wrong, I think. Which he is right, for a team on the cusp of contending, to roll the dice on an unproven player that cost a lot of draft capital, is dangerous. 

 

Which doesn't mean he wouldn't take one or that he hates it. Just that it has to be the right guy and he isn't just going to do it because it would get us/media off his back. 

 

I suspect sometime over next couple years he will look into drafting the long term guy of the future and let him learn from Ryan/Foles.

IMO he won't draft a QB when he has a vet ready to compete now. At least not in the first couple of rounds. 

 

He drafted 2 QBs in the 4th and the 6th. He's invested more in pretty much EVERY SINGLE OTHER position in the draft than in QB - IOL, LB, RB... well he hasn't invested in punter/kicker more I guess... 

 

Look, I get it! And I'm not pushing for him to draft a QB just to draft a QB. I know it has to be the right guy, but statements like the one above make me cringe. Why the hell would that even enter into his mind and why would he use it as any sort of rationalization or excuse? To be honest - for me a much bigger problem is not trying to find our QB of the future than trying and failing... To me Ballard just seems incredibly reluctant to make a big investment into a rookie QB. 

[Superman]

28 minutes ago, stitches said:

I mean he's said it several times already... and he's refused to invest heavily into drafting a QB several times already. I'd take him at his word that is supported by his actions. 

In what way is it a mischaracterization? You can argue the finer details but that's essentially what he's saying... 

 

 

I think you're misunderstanding his point, and taking his comment too literally. I think his comment was tongue-in-cheek, and while there's some truth to it, it doesn't mean Ballard doesn't want to be wrong about a QB because he might lose his job.

 

After all, if he doesn't find a franchise QB, he'll eventually lose his job anyway.

 

To me, it's very clear what he's saying. Just because you draft a QB in the first round doesn't mean you've solved all your problems at QB. And in response to talking heads and message board fans -- to whom he's directing his 'it will get you off my *' comment -- it's a reminder that people who get all hyped up over prospects in draft season rarely come back and evaluate their own opinions. Especially if they loved a player who doesn't live up to expectations. But those same people, media and fans, have no problem criticizing a GM with the benefit of hindsight.

[stitches]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think you're misunderstanding his point, and taking his comment too literally. I think his comment was tongue-in-cheek, and while there's some truth to it, it doesn't mean Ballard doesn't want to be wrong about a QB because he might lose his job.

 

After all, if he doesn't find a franchise QB, he'll eventually lose his job anyway.

 

To me, it's very clear what he's saying. Just because you draft a QB in the first round doesn't mean you've solved all your problems at QB. And in response to talking heads and message board fans -- to whom he's directing his 'it will get you off my *' comment -- it's a reminder that people who get all hyped up over prospects in draft season rarely come back and evaluate their own opinions. Especially if they loved a player who doesn't live up to expectations. But those same people, media and fans, have no problem criticizing a GM with the benefit of hindsight.

I think if it wasn't on his mind he wouldn't even bring it up. Just like he doesn't bring up his potential failures with other positions in the draft. To me the process is much more important than whether or not he's going to miss on a QB. The process that is above all in my opinion is - once you don't have a franchise QB - you go get one and you don't leave a stone unturned until you find that guy. It becomes priority No. 1, 2, 3... In fact, I'm much more willing to forgive a miss... or even two on QBs than not even trying... 

[Superman]

Just now, stitches said:

I think if it wasn't on his mind he wouldn't even bring it up. Just like he doesn't bring up his potential failures with other positions in the draft. To me the process is much more important than whether or not he's going to miss on a QB. The process that is above all in my opinion is - once you don't have a franchise QB - you go get one and you don't leave a stone unturned until you find that guy. It becomes priority No. 1, 2, 3... In fact, I'm much more willing to forgive a miss... or even two on QBs than not even trying... 

 

He's answering a question. It's not like he just brought it up out of nowhere. Without going back to find the entire presser, I'd be willing to bet this was the third or fourth question in a row about the QB position, just based on the pattern with Colts reporters. That context matters.

 

Further context: This is going into the 2021 offseason. The Colts were picking at #21. There were basically five QBs worth talking about in this draft, and they were all gone by #15. Even getting into the conversation for any of that year's rookie QBs would have required a major investment in draft capital. And after 2021, we'd probably still be sitting here unsure of whether we have a franchise QB.

 

And while I think Ballard's comment is partly made in jest, it also rings true. GMs typically don't get second chances after they take a big swing for a QB, especially if they have to give up major draft capital. This overall dynamic doesn't really exist at other positions, nor does any other position in team sports get scrutinized to this degree, so why would Ballard have made a similar comment about acquiring a player at a different position?

 

We agree on the process. The Colts have lurched from one strategy to the next, spent major resources, and aren't in great shape at QB. They lucked into the guy we have, and he's not for long. I don't agree that they haven't tried, or that they're unwilling to try in the future.

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He's answering a question. It's not like he just brought it up out of nowhere. Without going back to find the entire presser, I'd be willing to bet this was the third or fourth question in a row about the QB position, just based on the pattern with Colts reporters. That context matters.

 

Further context: This is going into the 2021 offseason. The Colts were picking at #21. There were basically five QBs worth talking about in this draft, and they were all gone by #15. Even getting into the conversation for any of that year's rookie QBs would have required a major investment in draft capital. And after 2021, we'd probably still be sitting here unsure of whether we have a franchise QB.

 

And while I think Ballard's comment is partly made in jest, it also rings true. GMs typically don't get second chances after they take a big swing for a QB, especially if they have to give up major draft capital. This overall dynamic doesn't really exist at other positions, nor does any other position in team sports get scrutinized to this degree, so why would Ballard have made a similar comment about acquiring a player at a different position?

 

We agree on the process. The Colts have lurched from one strategy to the next, spent major resources, and aren't in great shape at QB. They lucked into the guy we have, and he's not for long. I don't agree that they haven't tried, or that they're unwilling to try in the future.

Well, I guess we will see what happens. 

 

My prediction is - as long as Matt Ryan is here we will not draft a QB in the first 2 rounds. 

 

Secondary prediction - after Matt Ryan is gone, if Ballard is still here, he will again try to go for a vet before resorting to heavy investment in a QB in the draft. 

[w87r]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

Secondary prediction - after Matt Ryan is gone, if Ballard is still here, he will again try to go for a vet before resorting to heavy investment in a QB in the draft. 

Wouldn't that really be the best thing they could do at that point? In 2-3 years our young guys will be entering their prime and we should be even more of a contender then. Would much rather go proven vet in your scenario.(no investment in rookie QB)

 

 

I think we will take a guy probably 2024(first 2 rounds? IDK, if not 3rd or 4th)and hope he can learn then take over when Ryan is done(Ryan signs a 1/2yr extension next year to reduce cap hit and is here for 3 years minimum). Ryan could play another 3-5 years I think though, and at a high level.

[Four2itus]

24 minutes ago, stitches said:

My prediction is - as long as Matt Ryan is here we will not draft a QB in the first 2 rounds. 

Which is exactly what I want him to not do. 

 

25 minutes ago, stitches said:

Secondary prediction - after Matt Ryan is gone, if Ballard is still here, he will again try to go for a vet before resorting to heavy investment in a QB in the draft. 

Depends on where the team is drafting, and who is available. 

 

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Look, I get it! And I'm not pushing for him to draft a QB just to draft a QB.

Actually, you kind of are. 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

Well, I guess we will see what happens. 

 

My prediction is - as long as Matt Ryan is here we will not draft a QB in the first 2 rounds. 

 

Secondary prediction - after Matt Ryan is gone, if Ballard is still here, he will again try to go for a vet before resorting to heavy investment in a QB in the draft. 

 

Only time will tell, but if the next couple years produce QB draft classes like 2022, then what can you do? 

 

We should probably pay close attention to Malik Willis, for example. You advocated traded up to draft him in the first round, which is fine. He went late in the third. If he doesn't look like a good QB after a couple seasons, I think it illustrates Ballard's point pretty well. There's no consequence for you, except you have to change your profile picture. For a GM, he actually gets judged on the outcome, and his life can change dramatically on the basis of his decisions. (I'll do the same for Ridder.)

 

The point is, just because you draft a guy doesn't mean you've solved the problem, and fans/media don't really acknowledge that during draft/FA season. And I think that's where Ballard's comment was coming from. Not that he's so afraid of his own shadow that he won't pull the trigger on a big move.

[stitches]

34 minutes ago, w87r said:

Wouldn't that really be the best thing they could do at that point? In 2-3 years our young guys will be entering their prime and we should be even more of a contender then. Would much rather go proven vet in your scenario.(no investment in rookie QB)

 

 

I think we will take a guy probably 2024(first 2 rounds? IDK, if not 3rd or 4th)and hope he can learn then take over when Ryan is done(Ryan signs a 1/2yr extension next year to reduce cap hit and is here for 3 years minimum). Ryan could play another 3-5 years I think though, and at a high level.

No because the proven vets you can get are either in the end of their career(Rivers, Ryan) or not all that good(Wentz). Nobody is giving up franchise QBs in their prime. 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

No because the proven vets you can get are either in the end of their career(Rivers, Ryan) or not all that good(Wentz). Nobody is giving up franchise QBs in their prime. 

 

Unless they're accused of sexual assault...

[stitches]

39 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Only time will tell, but if the next couple years produce QB draft classes like 2022, then what can you do? 

 

We should probably pay close attention to Malik Willis, for example. You advocated traded up to draft him in the first round, which is fine. He went late in the third. If he doesn't look like a good QB after a couple seasons, I think it illustrates Ballard's point pretty well. There's no consequence for you, except you have to change your profile picture. For a GM, he actually gets judged on the outcome, and his life can change dramatically on the basis of his decisions. (I'll do the same for Ridder.)

 

The point is, just because you draft a guy doesn't mean you've solved the problem, and fans/media don't really acknowledge that during draft/FA season. And I think that's where Ballard's comment was coming from. Not that he's so afraid of his own shadow that he won't pull the trigger on a big move.

 

Eh, this draft was widely considered pretty bad for QBs. Most drafts are not. Should we hold it against him that he didn't go for Herbert when he was within reach? Again... I am much less interested in keeping scores for the outcomes than for the process. First, because I realize pretty much every single GM has similar success rate in the draft over the long run, so what's important is that you do the right things and win the game of process rather than focus on outcomes that are highly dependent on chance. And second... I am horrible at evaluating QBs. My track record is pretty bad and I can admit that. But also... I'm a fan on a message board. I'm not an NFL GM being paid millions to make those decisions. Ballard is! 

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Unless they're accused of sexual assault...

Touché. 

[w87r]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

No because the proven vets you can get are either in the end of their career(Rivers, Ryan) or not all that good(Wentz). Nobody is giving up franchise QBs in their prime. 

I just think you are massively underselling Ryan right now.. That's fine though, everyone has an opinion. Hopefully you're wrong though. Lol.

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Unless they're accused of sexual assault...

Yeah, you got Watson

 

There is also Jimmy G out there.(proven winner and great game manager) . Held back this year with surgery or may of ended being a Colt.

 

Mayfield, although I may not agree, it's possible he could thrive in Carolina.

 

Some young guys who might need change of scenery(Daniel Jones). 

 

None of the latter 3 are on Watson skill level, clearly, but have been labeled their teams franchise QB at some point.

 

Not that I am saying these are Colts options. Just saying the league is changing a bit and teams have been quick to abandon young QBs and move to the next guy and that could turn into a steal potentially for us when it's time, with a guy bout to go in his prime and needs change of scenery. Some guys are starting to become available and I think that is a trend likely to continue.

 

I still think Ballard will draft the QB he wants to be the long term guy in next couple years.

 

If not another vet it is likely. Ryan has 3-5 years of good football though, I think.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Eh, this draft was widely considered pretty bad for QBs. Most drafts are not. Should we hold it against him that he didn't go for Herbert when he was within reach? Again... I am much less interested in keeping scores for the outcomes than for the process. First, because I realize pretty much every single GM has similar success rate in the draft over the long run, so what's important is that you do the right things and win the game of process rather than focus on outcomes that are highly dependent on chance. And second... I am horrible at evaluating QBs. My track record is pretty bad and I can admit that. But also... I'm a fan on a message board. I'm not an NFL GM being paid millions to make those decisions. 

 

Herbert is really the one guy that we should have gone after, but was he 'within reach'? It would have been costly to move that high up in that draft; realistically, we would have had to get to #4. Doable, but expensive.

 

My point about evaluating our own preferences is not to prove who is most qualified. It's that fans and media don't tend to acknowledge that simply checking off positions during the offseason doesn't mean those positions have been adequately addressed. It's not like grocery shopping, you don't get to make a list, grab whatever you want off the shelf at a fixed price, and know for sure that you have what you need. Drafting, especially QBs, is fighting a bunch of other teams over a very scarce amount of potential resources, where the prices fluctuate drastically... and most importantly, you don't know whether you have what you need until you've finished preparing the meal. (Actually, grocery shopping is like that in some areas lately...)

 

For fans and media, there are no real stakes, so you can make a list of your favorite guys at your perceived positions of need, and then judge a GM on whether he acquired one of the players you want. In real life, the GM actually gets held accountable for his decisions. To the initial point, I think that's what Ballard was saying. Not that he doesn't want to draft a QB high because if he's wrong, he'll get fired. Just that it's a real process with real consequences. In fact, the real takeaway is that the team probably hasn't felt strongly enough about anyone in the draft since 2020 to make the investment that would be required. With the exception of Herbert, it's hard to disagree.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, w87r said:

but have been labeled their teams franchise QB at some point.

 

To stitches point, so was Wentz. Like he said, they're not good enough. Something is deficient, sometimes it's very obvious (JG), other times it's more under the surface (Wentz), but we know something's missing. 

 

Even Watson, tbh, for all his ability, has no real accomplishments so far. Even Russell Wilson has a lot to prove.

[w87r]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

To stitches point, so was Wentz. Like he said, they're not good enough. Something is deficient, sometimes it's very obvious (JG), other times it's more under the surface (Wentz), but we know something's missing. 

 

Even Watson, tbh, for all his ability, has no real accomplishments so far. Even Russell Wilson has a lot to prove.

I get it, but vet options have the potential to get us where we need to go.

 

Rivers almost had us in the AFC title game

 Who knows what could of happens if we pulled that game out? I think Ryan is a big step up Tom where Rivers was at, at that time.

 

 

Many ways to get things done. Ballard is doing what he thinks is best right now. Find a vet option for a team that looks ready to compete. Rather than give the keys over to an unproven option.

 

He will draft another guy at some point, when the right guy is in reach. Right now we have the best option available to us.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

I get it, but vet options have the potential to get us where we need to go.

 

Rivers almost had us in the AFC title game

 Who knows what could of happens if we pulled that game out? I think Ryan is a big step up Tom where Rivers was at, at that time.

 

 

Many ways to get things done. Ballard is doing what he thinks is best right now. Find a vet option for a team that looks ready to compete. Rather than give the keys over to an unproven option.

 

He will draft another guy at some point, when the right guy is in reach. Right now we have the best option available to us.

 

We lost the wild card game with Rivers. But I do agree, I see Ryan as a more physically capable version of Rivers, who will hopefully stick around for 2-3 years and provide some stability. So if we were good enough to win 11 games with Rivers, it's not hard to see us doing the same and maybe having some success in the playoffs with Ryan.

[GoColts8818]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Unless they're accused of sexual assault...

Or named Russel Wilson.  

[w87r]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We lost the wild card game with Rivers. But I do agree, I see Ryan as a more physically capable version of Rivers, who will hopefully stick around for 2-3 years and provide some stability. So if we were good enough to win 11 games with Rivers, it's not hard to see us doing the same and maybe having some success in the playoffs with Ryan.

Yeah, not sure why I was thinking it was divisional round. Trippin.

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Herbert is really the one guy that we should have gone after, but was he 'within reach'? It would have been costly to move that high up in that draft; realistically, we would have had to get to #4. Doable, but expensive.

If you get the QB of the future the cost almost doesn't matter. The only question is - is it doable? 

 

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

My point about evaluating our own preferences is not to prove who is most qualified. It's that fans and media don't tend to acknowledge that simply checking off positions during the offseason doesn't mean those positions have been adequately addressed. It's not like grocery shopping, you don't get to make a list, grab whatever you want off the shelf at a fixed price, and know for sure that you have what you need. Drafting, especially QBs, is fighting a bunch of other teams over a very scarce amount of potential resources, where the prices fluctuate drastically... and most importantly, you don't know whether you have what you need until you've finished preparing the meal. (Actually, grocery shopping is like that in some areas lately...)

 

For fans and media, there are no real stakes, so you can make a list of your favorite guys at your perceived positions of need, and then judge a GM on whether he acquired one of the players you want. In real life, the GM actually gets held accountable for his decisions. To the initial point, I think that's what Ballard was saying. Not that he doesn't want to draft a QB high because if he's wrong, he'll get fired. Just that it's a real process with real consequences. In fact, the real takeaway is that the team probably hasn't felt strongly enough about anyone in the draft since 2020 to make the investment that would be required. With the exception of Herbert, it's hard to disagree.

There is no question that there are real consequences for teams and decision makers. I just find it peculiar that at the front of his mind is "what happens if the guy starts playing bad?"... if that's at the front of your mind you will never make a decisive call on any decision that entails uncertainty. If Ballard wants certainty, he won't find it where we are usually drafting. 

 

I think they loved Trey Lance. No idea how he develops from here on out but he was a blue chipper on our board. I wonder if 49ers traded up for Mac Jones and it was instead Trey Lance that started falling and got to the teens... does Ballard trade up then? We had just traded for Wentz... I doubt we would have gone up for Lance too... 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, w87r said:

I just think you are massively underselling Ryan right now.. That's fine though, everyone has an opinion. Hopefully you're wrong though. Lol.

How am I underselling Ryan? I said he's at the end of his career, not tha the's bad. He will very likely be better than Wentz. 

[w87r]

Just now, stitches said:

How am I underselling Ryan? I said he's at the end of his career, not tha the's bad. He will very likely be better than Wentz. 

Just your expectations of what he can do and how long he can still do it. Like I said I think he can go another 3-5 yrs. You seem to be more in the 1yr range and if anything longer will only be worse. 

[stitches]

6 minutes ago, w87r said:

Just your expectations of what he can do and how long he can still do it. Like I said I think he can go another 3-5 yrs. You seem to be more in the 1yr range and if anything longer will only be worse. 

I expect him to be our QB for the next 2 years. After that - who knows? 

 

I don't know at what level I expect him to play. Maybe about average NFL QB? About what he's been the last 2-3 years. And yes, I expect him to get worse with time, but that's only natural. I have no idea why it's any surprise. Almost every QB gets worse with time as they approach 40. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, stitches said:

If you get the QB of the future the cost almost doesn't matter. The only question is - is it doable? 

 

There is no question that there are real consequences for teams and decision makers. I just find it peculiar that at the front of his mind is "what happens if the guy starts playing bad?"... if that's at the front of your mind you will never make a decisive call on any decision that entails uncertainty. If Ballard wants certainty, he won't find it where we are usually drafting. 

 

I think they loved Trey Lance. No idea how he develops from here on out but he was a blue chipper on our board. I wonder if 49ers traded up for Mac Jones and it was instead Trey Lance that started falling and got to the teens... does Ballard trade up then? We had just traded for Wentz... I doubt we would have gone up for Lance too... 

 

That's a big "if." (See what I did there?) And that's really what it's all about. You don't know whether you're getting the guy, but you have to make a huge commitment to acquire him, and then you have to wait and see how it turns out.

 

Since the 2019 draft, there have really only been three QBs that, as of today, look like they're worthy of that level of commitment. Herbert and Burrow were both 2020, and Kyler Murray was the year before (and I'm being generous even including him). You'd have to tank to get #1 for Kyler or Burrow, because no one was coming off the #1 pick in those years. So that leaves Herbert, which means we needed to get to #4 in 2020, ahead of the Dolphins, to get the guy we wanted. The price went way up in 2021 -- the Niners gave up three firsts and a third to go from #12 to #3 and draft Trey Lance. In 2019 and 2020, there were no top five draft picks traded. I think it's safe to assume that it would have cost us #13 in 2020, and our 2021 first, as a starting point, to have a shot at Herbert. It's worth it if the guy hits -- I liked Herbert at the time, and he's lived up to his draft status for sure -- but there are way more fails at QB high in the first round, so it's appropriate to be measured.

 

I don't know that it's at the front of Ballard's mind that the pick might not work, and I don't think he wants certainty. Like I said, I think his comment is evidence  that they haven't felt strongly enough about anyone in the first round to go after them that aggressively. In hindsight, they should have given up the picks to take Herbert. Between the cap space we spent on Wentz and Ryan, and the draft picks we gave up, it's basically the same cost; throw in the $25m we paid Rivers if you want, because Herbert was ready on Day 1. But you don't get Defo, or Paye. Still worth it.

 

They may have liked Trey Lance, but obviously not as much as the Niners. And yeah, once we had Wentz, we weren't going to spend more draft capital on a QB. They expected Wentz to be around for several years.