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

[GoColts8818]

9 hours 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 took that more as Ballard saying he’s not going to force it just because they need one.  He’s going to be patient to get the guy he wants.  At no point did I take it that he’s scared to do it.  

[stitches]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

To me with QBs it's kind of a binary proposition - if you hit, it doesn't matter what it costs, it's a huge success... and if you don't hit - again - it doesn't matter what it costs - it's a failure. 

 

I also don't believe the destiny for most QBs is predetermined. I think there is some chunk of QBs that will succeed no matter what, no matter the situation(pretty much Luck types) and then there are some that will fail no matter what(don't have the physical and/or mental abilities to push through difficult times and development)... BUT IMO there is a BIG chunk of QBs that have wide range of outcomes that are dependent on their environment and the culture in the organization they end up in. This means that a lot of the players we are counting as busts, IMO in a different situation might have ended up different QBs. And if there is something Ballard and Reich have managed to ace IMO it's the culture and structure aspect of running this franchise. IMO we have one of the stronger organizations in that aspect in the league and I like Frank as a QB coach. In essence, I trust in  this coach and this situation to be able to develop a QB more than most in the league. And again - there is no guarantee, but I feel like the Jordan Love's, Justin Fields, Trey Lance's, Malik Willis' of the world would have a good shot to succeed in this environment. 

[Nickster]

On 8/6/2022 at 12:58 AM, 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. 

Well they did try with Wentz.

[Nickster]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:28 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 Twitter Irsay has created that environment.  I hope we are not in that mediocrity cycle ie.  Just good enough not to suck enough to take chance on a QB in the draft.  It’s been many a year now since ole Andy up and quit.

 

I’m not sure Ryan is going to be good here but if he is, we could be set for a while in reality, depending on how his holds up.

[Nickster]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:47 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

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.

Well there is one lol.  ARodge seems to be headed in that direction too but it’s certainly not common.

[Nickster]

12 hours 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.

 

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.

I pretty much agree with everything you are saying here, but I also see the point that we haven’t really tried to draft a QB in the 5 years since Luck quit.

 

Don't you?  
 

I hope Ryan works out .  To me I’d say 50 50 Hes as good as Rivers was. 

[Nickster]

12 hours 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.

Just curious.  Why do you think Ryan is a step up from Rivers?  Looks like a pretty similar situation to me.  Actually statistically I think the argument is in favor of Rivers.  They both had down years before coming here but Rivers was a little better.  They both had good years the year before that but Rivers was pretty much obviously better than Ryan two years before coming here.

 

 

 

 

 

[Nickster]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

Supe told a joke!  Thought you were kinda humorless super duper serious MB poster man!

[w87r]

6 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Just curious.  Why do you think Ryan is a step up from Rivers?  Looks like a pretty similar situation to me.  Actually statistically I think the argument is in favor of Rivers.  They both had down years before coming here but Rivers was a little better.  They both had good years the year before that but Rivers was pretty much obviously better than Ryan two years before coming here.

 

 

 

 

 

Just think Ryan has a lot more left in the tank at this point than Rivers did.

[Nickster]

Enjoyed reading Supe and stitches convo this morning.

 

drafting QBs is like drafting baseball players.  You almost never know with a great level of certainty.

 

hope the strategy works out and we are not just kicking the can of then inevitable day of reckoning down the road.

[Nickster]

9 minutes ago, w87r said:

Just think Ryan has a lot more left in the tank at this point than Rivers did.

I think Rivers might have been kinda led to retirement.  Maybe not, it’s definitely just a feel thing, but it sure didn’t seem like he was going to at the end of the year.

 

he had talked for years about coaching his son.  Ida really liked to see what he could have done last year.  He played at a high level for us.

[w87r]

12 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I think Rivers might have been kinda led to retirement.  Maybe not, it’s definitely just a feel thing, but it sure didn’t seem like he was going to at the end of the year.

 

he had talked for years about coaching his son.  Ida really liked to see what he could have done last year.  He played at a high level for us.

He definitely played at a high level for us, but I think he held us back a bit still, with how much of a statue he was in the pocket.

 

Not any slander toward Rivers, like I had said on that original post, if we beat Buffalo that game who knows what happens the rest of the way.

 

Not saying Ryan is fleet of foot either, just saying I think that Ryan has more left than Rivers did at this junction of their career.

 

He may of been led to retirement? We may never know, but he did sound a little bummed and uncertain after the Bills loss.

[throwing BBZ]

38 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Just curious.  Why do you think Ryan is a step up from Rivers?  Looks like a pretty similar situation to me.  Actually statistically I think the argument is in favor of Rivers.  They both had down years before coming here but Rivers was a little better.  They both had good years the year before that but Rivers was pretty much obviously better than Ryan two years before coming here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Just the obvious. Ryan can play beyond a 4 yard circle. ARM Strength. 

There was not great enthusiasm here behind the Rivers signing based on these obvious limitations. And the reason we moved on from him.

 We can wonder who your source is that one "played better" than the other.

 Obviously there are so may factors to consider to make that judgement.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 hours ago, Nickster said:

Well there is one lol.  ARodge seems to be headed in that direction too but it’s certainly not common.

There have been several play good-great at 39 going on 40. Brett Favre was 40 when he had maybe the best year of his career with Minnesota. Drew Brees was still dominant at 39 going on 40 with the Saints. Peyton Manning was dominant when he was 38 and won a SB when he was 39 - he played good in the AFC playoffs. Look at how Rivers played for us when he was 39. Matt Ryan just turned 37 in May, no reason to think he can't play good for at least 3 more years especially considering he has never been injured. Difference between Ryan and Rivers is, we got Ryan 3 years younger which is huge because both all-time rank about the same = Top 25ish.

 

Of course if you count Brady, that is 5 QB's I just named that were good-great at 39 years old going on 40.

[Yoshinator]

I haven't read the entire 3 pages, but Matt Ryan stopping the Colts QB carousel makes about as much sense as a 12 year old dog stopping a dog carousel if the previous dogs all didn't work out and you had to give them away. Sure, that 12 year old dog may end up being the best dog of the bunch (Matt Ryan), but you only have him for a couple years, and that dog is going to become old and decline in health very quickly (or in talent in Matt Ryan's case). The better alternative would be to get a puppy (or draft a QB) and have him for 10-15 years to stop the puppy (or QB) carousel. 

 

Also, before I get any comment about this, I realize that saving a 12 year old dog is a good thing. In this case, it'd probably be from a shelter where the dog would be euphanized or put down at that age. I'm just comparing the dog and his age at that point in his life to Matt Ryan's age and this point in his career and how it was a ridiculous comment by Ballard and Reich.

[Superman]

36 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

how it was a ridiculous comment by Ballard and Reich.

 

Maybe you should have read the article.

[Superman]

8 hours ago, stitches said:

To me with QBs it's kind of a binary proposition - if you hit, it doesn't matter what it costs, it's a huge success... and if you don't hit - again - it doesn't matter what it costs - it's a failure. 

 

I also don't believe the destiny for most QBs is predetermined. I think there is some chunk of QBs that will succeed no matter what, no matter the situation(pretty much Luck types) and then there are some that will fail no matter what(don't have the physical and/or mental abilities to push through difficult times and development)... BUT IMO there is a BIG chunk of QBs that have wide range of outcomes that are dependent on their environment and the culture in the organization they end up in. This means that a lot of the players we are counting as busts, IMO in a different situation might have ended up different QBs. And if there is something Ballard and Reich have managed to ace IMO it's the culture and structure aspect of running this franchise. IMO we have one of the stronger organizations in that aspect in the league and I like Frank as a QB coach. In essence, I trust in  this coach and this situation to be able to develop a QB more than most in the league. And again - there is no guarantee, but I feel like the Jordan Love's, Justin Fields, Trey Lance's, Malik Willis' of the world would have a good shot to succeed in this environment. 

 

There are far more misses than hits, which is why caution is appropriate.

 

I agree, a lot of young QBs get mismanaged. They wind up with coaches or front offices that don't provide the proper support, or they get thrown to the wolves, etc.

 

It's so ironic to me how much criticism the Packers are getting for drafting Jordan Love. It's probably the best place for him to be, he didn't have the pressure of saving a bad team as a rookie, he can sit behind an all time great while he works on getting better, and they have a QB friendly HC. Their mistake is in not telling Rodgers what they had planned, but the strategy is fine. The Niners have a similar strategy with Lance, but I'm worried they're rushing it.

 

Still, there are probably more QBs who aren't good enough -- not necessarily busts or failures, but just can't break through high enough to elevate their team -- than those who get failed by the organization. Sales managers will refer to the 1-8-1 rule, which means for every ten prospects you talk to, one will buy no matter what, one won't buy no matter what, and the other 8 are up to you (exaggerated, of course). For QBs, it's probably the 1-4-5 rule: one will hit no matter what, five won't be good enough no matter what, and the other four have a decent chance depending on circumstance. But if you're talking about their chances of becoming an excellent, top tier QB, it's probably more like 1-2-7.

 

I think Justin Fields would have a better chance in Indy than in Chicago. I get your premise. There's still a lot of unknown with young QBs, though.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

  Just the obvious. Ryan can play beyond a 4 yard circle. ARM Strength. 

 

Rivers was very limited physically. He could muscle a throw down field from time to time, but the circumstances had to be just right. And his legs were absolutely done. He was never an escape artist, but by the time he played for us, there was nothing there. He couldn't move to avoid pressure, if he got moved off his spot the play was basically over, and under-center play action wasn't used very often.

 

Matt Ryan can still run, he can avoid pressure, he can throw under pressure, his ability to use play action is still in tact. And he has more arm than Rivers had in 2020. Physically, they don't look alike at all. 

[Superman]

5 hours ago, Nickster said:

I pretty much agree with everything you are saying here, but I also see the point that we haven’t really tried to draft a QB in the 5 years since Luck quit.

 

Don't you?  
 

I hope Ryan works out .  To me I’d say 50 50 Hes as good as Rivers was. 

 

There have been three drafts since Luck retired (don't know how you come up with five years). One of those first rounders was spent on Wentz, who they hoped would be here for more than one season. The other was the same year they traded for Wentz. In my mind, 2020 is the year where they blew it.

 

Disagree on Matt Ryan. I think 2020 Rivers is probably his floor. Feel free to bash me if I'm wrong.

 

5 hours ago, Nickster said:

Supe told a joke!  Thought you were kinda humorless super duper serious MB poster man!

 

[Nickster]

5 hours ago, w87r said:

He definitely played at a high level for us, but I think he held us back a bit still, with how much of a statue he was in the pocket.

 

Not any slander toward Rivers, like I had said on that original post, if we beat Buffalo that game who knows what happens the rest of the way.

 

Not saying Ryan is fleet of foot either, just saying I think that Ryan has more left than Rivers did at this junction of their career.

 

He may of been led to retirement? We may never know, but he did sound a little bummed and uncertain after the Bills loss.

To me Rivers release made up for any immobility.   One of the quickest releases of all time IMO. 

 

5 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  Just the obvious. Ryan can play beyond a 4 yard circle. ARM Strength. 

There was not great enthusiasm here behind the Rivers signing based on these obvious limitations. And the reason we moved on from him.

 We can wonder who your source is that one "played better" than the other.

 Obviously there are so may factors to consider to make that judgement.

 

People think Ryan has that kind of release, and I think many will find that he just doesn't.  But what he does have is ball handling skills that Rivers didn't have.

 

ESPN.com com stats was my source.

 

 

[Nickster]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

There have been several play good-great at 39 going on 40. Brett Favre was 40 when he had maybe the best year of his career with Minnesota. Drew Brees was still dominant at 39 going on 40 with the Saints. Peyton Manning was dominant when he was 38 and won a SB when he was 39 - he played good in the AFC playoffs. Look at how Rivers played for us when he was 39. Matt Ryan just turned 37 in May, no reason to think he can't play good for at least 3 more years especially considering he has never been injured. Difference between Ryan and Rivers is, we got Ryan 3 years younger which is huge because both all-time rank about the same = Top 25ish.

 

Of course if you count Brady, that is 5 QB's I just named that were good-great at 39 years old going on 40.

Thought you said 40 lol. 

 

There are more reasons to expect a QB is going to diminish than get better or maintain at Ryans Age.  Manning had gone through debilitating neck surgery before he bounced back.  he was a fringy starter when he won the SB.  Like he was benched that year.  To me that does not help your argument. 

 

Brees was pretty darn good, but he never had bad years like Ryan has had.

 

Ryan's production has been diminishing for a while.   He might play well several years longer, but the odds are against us. Rivers could barely walk the year he played for us.  He was amazingly effective though. 

 

but to say that there is "no reason" why Ryan can't play until x age seems pretty goofy honestly.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

There have been three drafts since Luck retired (don't know how you come up with five years). One of those first rounders was spent on Wentz, who they hoped would be here for more than one season. The other was the same year they traded for Wentz. In my mind, 2020 is the year where they blew it.

 

Disagree on Matt Ryan. I think 2020 Rivers is probably his floor. Feel free to bash me if I'm wrong.

 

 

2020?    Blew it?   
 

That seems harsh to me.   Especially considering the Colts turned the 13th pick into Buckner.    And that decision came in March.  
 

We don’t know what Ballard did or didn’t try to do?    So “blew it” feels like Monday Morning Quarterbacking at the least. 

[Nickster]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There have been three drafts since Luck retired (don't know how you come up with five years). One of those first rounders was spent on Wentz, who they hoped would be here for more than one season. The other was the same year they traded for Wentz. In my mind, 2020 is the year where they blew it.

 

Disagree on Matt Ryan. I think 2020 Rivers is probably his floor. Feel free to bash me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

Hope you are right.  I'd be tickled pink if he plays as good. 

 

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

2020?    Blew it?   
 

That seems harsh to me.   Especially considering the Colts turned the 13th pick into Buckner.    And that decision came in March.  
 

We don’t know what Ballard did or didn’t try to do?    So “blew it” feels like Monday Morning Quarterbacking at the least. 

 

"Blew it" means I think that was their best chance, and they didn't do it, so they missed their chance. 

[RollerColt]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

There are far more misses than hits, which is why caution is appropriate.

 

I agree, a lot of young QBs get mismanaged. They wind up with coaches or front offices that don't provide the proper support, or they get thrown to the wolves, etc.

 

It's so ironic to me how much criticism the Packers are getting for drafting Jordan Love. It's probably the best place for him to be, he didn't have the pressure of saving a bad team as a rookie, he can sit behind an all time great while he works on getting better, and they have a QB friendly HC. Their mistake is in not telling Rodgers what they had planned, but the strategy is fine. The Niners have a similar strategy with Lance, but I'm worried they're rushing it.

 

Still, there are probably more QBs who aren't good enough -- not necessarily busts or failures, but just can't break through high enough to elevate their team -- than those who get failed by the organization. Sales managers will refer to the 1-8-1 rule, which means for every ten prospects you talk to, one will buy no matter what, one won't buy no matter what, and the other 8 are up to you (exaggerated, of course). For QBs, it's probably the 1-4-5 rule: one will hit no matter what, five won't be good enough no matter what, and the other four have a decent chance depending on circumstance. But if you're talking about their chances of becoming an excellent, top tier QB, it's probably more like 1-2-7.

 

I think Justin Fields would have a better chance in Indy than in Chicago. I get your premise. There's still a lot of unknown with young QBs, though.

I think most QBs who get to the NFL level have the arm talent. It's the cerebral part that really weeds out the few who become successful. It's amazing to think how cutthroat it really is to be honest. Only 32 starting jobs and 32 backup roles to fill, with hundreds of prospects. Yes, I absolutely agree that a lot of times it's also the situation surrounding the player that can make the difference. 

 

It's fascinating for me to follow Trevor Lawrence. He's had a rough start to his career. Can Peterson be that stable mentor for him? 

[Nickster]

17 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

2020?    Blew it?   
 

That seems harsh to me.   Especially considering the Colts turned the 13th pick into Buckner.    And that decision came in March.  
 

We don’t know what Ballard did or didn’t try to do?    So “blew it” feels like Monday Morning Quarterbacking at the least. 

 

To me, I like Buckner a lot as a player and I hope he is able to really start dominating with what will hopefully be a dominant DLINE.

 

But when you talk about the Buckner trade we gave up waaayyy more than a 13th pick.  We gave up that pick and 100 million plus in salary.  That means something.  

 

So I agree blew it might sound a little harsh, but that would have been a great opportunity to try to draft a franchise guy, to move up and get someone that had a decent chance to fill that position for the foreseeable future.

 

Here's the thing to me, if Ryan doesn't work out, I really hope we go into serious rebuild mode, sell some of our assets and try to get our guy.

 

I've said for years I hope we aren't putting ourselves on the mediocrity carousel of being just good enough not to be bad enough to have a chance to get the type of top end talent that we likely really need for cheap in the draft with higher picks.

 

In my time as a Colts fan the 2 best things that happened to the franchise was being God awful terrible in 97 and again in 2011.  The 95-96 year was awesome, that was when I became a fan, but the franchise was ashambles shortly after that, and usually always previous to that.  

 

I hope this works out with what they've assembled, but I would rather have a couple of bad years, rather than the fringy mediocrity we've had the last few years, with a better chance to draft high end talent at the most important positions early in the draft.

 

If it works out awesome.  

 

 

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I think most QBs who get to the NFL level have the arm talent. It's the cerebral part that really weeds out the few who become successful. It's amazing to think how cutthroat it really is to be honest. Only 32 starting jobs and 32 backup roles to fill, with hundreds of prospects. Yes, I absolutely agree that a lot of times it's also the situation surrounding the player that can make the difference. 

 

It's fascinating for me to follow Trevor Lawrence. He's had a rough start to his career. Can Peterson be that stable mentor for him? 

 

Hope not lol.  I was never impressed with him last year.  I never really thought, oh yeah, this guy is going to be good.

 

But he didn't have much on the O roster and the org was a mess.  

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

It's fascinating for me to follow Trevor Lawrence. He's had a rough start to his career. Can Peterson be that stable mentor for him? 

 

Talk about an organization failing a rookie QB... 

 

But I've always been skeptical about Lawrence. He got crowned really early, but I had questions about him in the pros from the beginning. Hopefully he has a good second year.

[Nickster]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Talk about an organization failing a rookie QB... 

 

But I've always been skeptical about Lawrence. He got crowned really early, but I had questions about him in the pros from the beginning. Hopefully he has a good second year.

Hope he's a complete and utter bust lol.  

 

When I saw him his Frosh year, I thought no doubter.  The poise was seemingly other worldly precocious.

 

Looking at my signature, I admittedly don't have  good handle on how college QBs will translate in the League, and anymore the college game is simply the Alabama Clemson league and I have a hard time watching it.

 

I will if IU or PU is good, but uhh . . . , yeah so I don't watch much CF.

[stitches]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

There are far more misses than hits, which is why caution is appropriate.

 

I agree, a lot of young QBs get mismanaged. They wind up with coaches or front offices that don't provide the proper support, or they get thrown to the wolves, etc.

 

It's so ironic to me how much criticism the Packers are getting for drafting Jordan Love. It's probably the best place for him to be, he didn't have the pressure of saving a bad team as a rookie, he can sit behind an all time great while he works on getting better, and they have a QB friendly HC. Their mistake is in not telling Rodgers what they had planned, but the strategy is fine. The Niners have a similar strategy with Lance, but I'm worried they're rushing it.

 

Still, there are probably more QBs who aren't good enough -- not necessarily busts or failures, but just can't break through high enough to elevate their team -- than those who get failed by the organization. Sales managers will refer to the 1-8-1 rule, which means for every ten prospects you talk to, one will buy no matter what, one won't buy no matter what, and the other 8 are up to you (exaggerated, of course). For QBs, it's probably the 1-4-5 rule: one will hit no matter what, five won't be good enough no matter what, and the other four have a decent chance depending on circumstance. But if you're talking about their chances of becoming an excellent, top tier QB, it's probably more like 1-2-7.

 

I think Justin Fields would have a better chance in Indy than in Chicago. I get your premise. There's still a lot of unknown with young QBs, though.

The Packers did the right thing IMO. Now maybe their player evaluation was wrong, but strategically I loved their pick, especially since they did it after a down year from Rodgers.

 

In general you are probably in the right ballpark on the chances for QBs to pan out. It is definitely not easy to hit on one. But it's still the best option for getting a franchise QB bar none. All other options (free agency, trade) have much lower success rate. In the last 20 years there's probably like... ONE franchise QB who was traded for and spent the majority of his career with his new team(Brees). HUGE majority of QBs that become available be it through trade or in FA are either at the end of their careers(we are not talking about long-term options) or not that good. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

Hope he's a complete and utter bust lol.  

 

I want us to dominate our division, but I think it's important to have good divisional opponents. Our team needs to measure itself against other good teams, not perennial losers. So bring it on. I hope Davis Mills and Malik Willis are good also. 

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Talk about an organization failing a rookie QB... 

 

But I've always been skeptical about Lawrence. He got crowned really early, but I had questions about him in the pros from the beginning. Hopefully he has a good second year.

Not to be overlooked but look at the Bears with Fields too.  They get a franchise QB and then go defense and do very little to build around him.  That just seems like a mistake.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Not to be overlooked but look at the Bears with Fields too.  They get a franchise QB and then go defense and do very little to build around him.  That just seems like a mistake.

 

Yeah I expected the Bears to do more on the OL, but I guess they're trying to address the protection issues through scheme.

[Rhodelesstraveled]

The fact that Ryan is playing a Q in the first game and the offense has been struggling is not confidence building for me.  

[Nickster]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I want us to dominate our division, but I think it's important to have good divisional opponents. Our team needs to measure itself against other good teams, not perennial losers. So bring it on. I hope Davis Mills and Malik Willis are good also. 

Weak division opponents didn’t hurt the Pats all those years,  I couldn’t disagree more on that.

 

 A weak division increases the likelihood of homefield and bys.

 

I hope our division sucks every year.  There will be plenty of competition in the other 11 games.

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 hours ago, Nickster said:

Thought you said 40 lol. 

 

There are more reasons to expect a QB is going to diminish than get better or maintain at Ryans Age.  Manning had gone through debilitating neck surgery before he bounced back.  he was a fringy starter when he won the SB.  Like he was benched that year.  To me that does not help your argument. 

 

Brees was pretty darn good, but he never had bad years like Ryan has had.

 

Ryan's production has been diminishing for a while.   He might play well several years longer, but the odds are against us. Rivers could barely walk the year he played for us.  He was amazingly effective though. 

 

but to say that there is "no reason" why Ryan can't play until x age seems pretty goofy honestly.

"Goofy" or not, I see no reason why Matt Ryan can't play at a good level for the next 3 years. He is 100% healthy, is durable, and still has good arm strength. I gave you plenty of examples of QBs that have been good at 39 pushing 40, and even QBs at 40 that were good and it went right over your head as usual. Matt Ryan will just have turned 39 going into 2024. 

[Indy87]

The AFC is loaded. But you only have to get in and anything can happen. We only fave to face 3 of those AFC opponents and if you're a higher seed you're going to be playing the likes of last year's steelers lol jk. 

 

But seriously we don't need to beat all the QBs only a handful come playoff time. 

[Myles]

Honestly, I would be thrilled if the Colts keep signing proven vet QB's.   Unless, of course, they have a draft pick in the top 5, but I don't see that happening in the next few years.  I just see so many QB's taken in the top 10 that do not pan out.  I do not want to give up that much draft capital to move up.  

[John Hammonds]

I'm not sure how we talked ourselves into believing that the only way to reach a superbowl is by drafting your own franchise quarterback.  It's that or nothing.  If you don't draft your own, you have no hope of reaching a superbowl.  Nada.

 

Retreaded QB's that led their adopted teams to superbowls:

Len Dawson was drafted 5th overall in 1957 by the Steelers.  After being unable to crack the starting lineup with both the Steelers and the Browns over the course of five years, he went to the AFL, and led the Chiefs to two superbowls, winning one of them.

Jim Plunkett was drafted 1st overall by the Patriots in 1971.  He played well for 6 years until separating his shoulder, as well as a change in offense.  Was traded to the 49ers, where he played ok, but not well enough, and was released.  Picked up by Oakland, he took over for an injured Dan Pastorini, and led the Raiders to two superbowls and winning MVP.

Doug Williams was the 17th overall pick by the Bucs in 1978.  He spent four years there, being disrespected by owner Hugh Culverhouse, and left to the USFL.  When that folded, he was signed by the R*dskins, and took them to a superbowl.

Ron Jaworski was drafted in the 2nd round by the Rams.  He was a useful backup while they made their playoff run.  He was then traded to the Eagles, where he led them to the superbowl in 1980.

Chris Chandler was a 3rd round pick of the Colts in 1988, and bounced around the league for 9 years.  Eventually wound up in Atlanta with coach Dan Reeves, where they went to the superbowl together, losing to the Broncos in Elway's final hurrah.

Trent Dilfer was the 6th overall pick by the Bucs in 1994.  He played ok, but inconsistently for 5 years, and was traded during the Bucs' search for better offense to match their amazing defense.  He landed in Baltimore, where he played just well enough to complement their amazing defense, and win a superbowl in 2000.

Brad Johnson was a 9th round pick with the Vikings.  He was a nobody.  Actually played for the London Monarchs for a season.  Came back to the NFL with the R*dskins, and started for them.  Traded to the Bucs in 2003, and led them to a superbowl win.

Matthew Stafford was the 1st overall pick for the Lions in 2009.  He played 11 years with them, sometimes in the playoffs, sometimes in obscurity.  Was traded to the Rams in 2021, and led them to the superbowl.

 

There are others with greater or lesser stories as well.  Matt Hasselbeck, Kurt Warner, Kerry Collins, Jake Delhomme, Brett Favre.  All went to the superbowl with a different team than the one they started with.

 

It's been done.  Don't know why we have to insist that we cannot go that route.

 

[shasta519]

On 8/10/2022 at 7:06 AM, Nickster said:

Just curious.  Why do you think Ryan is a step up from Rivers?  Looks like a pretty similar situation to me.  Actually statistically I think the argument is in favor of Rivers.  They both had down years before coming here but Rivers was a little better.  They both had good years the year before that but Rivers was pretty much obviously better than Ryan two years before coming here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly this. The consensus narrative seems to be that not only is Ryan an upgrade from Wentz, but he's also the best QB they have had since Luck, which means he's also a step up from Rivers.

 

But there is nothing to really support that until we see Ryan play this season. 

 

When Rivers came to Indy, he was coming off a bad season. But the season prior to that he had a legit PB season at age 37. He had already shown that he could play at a high level into the back half of his 30s, even with his physical limitations. 

 

Ryan is coming off a poor season as well. But you have to go back three seasons prior to that to find a really high level of play, when Ryan was 33 and still in his prime. And since then, his play has declined into the back half of his 30s. 

 

If anything, a betting person would have bet on Rivers in the respective situations, who had the higher recent level of play. But I get that most fans aren't bettors.