Please no more Jordan Love type talk

[RollerColt]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Figures, Browns = 

Yep. And with Watson's bad start, combined with probably being out the rest of the season, Josh has an actual decent chance of being backup to Jacoby. 

[PRnum1]

13 hours ago, lennymoore24 said:

For all of you who were screaming about the Colts taking Jordan Love a few drafts back, please never do that again.  I get so tired of hearing the Colts HAVE to draft a QB and guys like Jordan Love have all this potential.  So, how would Chris Ballard and Frank Reich look now if he was our QB?  Would they even still be here?  Please understand a golden rule. Picking a QB in the first round doesn't guarantee a franchise QB.  In fact, more times than not, the player is a bust.  To get a real "franchise" QB, the Colts are going to have to luck into an Andrew Luck type by either being terrible, trading many draft picks to move up, or get lucky and find a sleeper.  And I diagree with guys like Kevin who say the Colts HAVE to pick a QB in the next years draft. I think Ryan will play 4 years at a high level So it wouldn't make sense. I would rather the Colts either have the #1 pick with an Andrew Luck player there OR pick someone in the 2nd/3rd round and get lucky with that person.  But please no more Jordan Love/Malik Willis/Justin Fields/Kyle Trask talk.  Taking someone raw in college and grooming them into a top NFL RARELY happens. I would say Josh Allen is the ONLY one I can think of recently. Most of the time, they are busts.  

Jordan love is a TERRIBLE QB. I said that before the draft and I stick to it.  You gotta know what you are watching!

So much of that is due to coaching too.

 

Jordan Love may be discouraged as he is never going to get a chance to play so surprised the Packers haven't traded him.  So why prepare hard if you are never going to play ?

 

Justin Fields is looking better and better in his second year.

 

Malik Willis looked good in his first preseason action but has a ways to go.  My concern with him is his long windup, but very mobile and has a strong arm.

 

Desmond Ridder looked good as well in his first preseason game, but its still only preseason.  He has a good pedigree though, he played for Cincy and was on an undefeated team until they got beat by Alabama in the playoffs.

 

Bottom line is it can take 2-3 years before you know what you have in a QB.  But most fanbases and coaching staffs don't have that amount of time.

[Superman]

9 hours ago, stitches said:

For whatever it's worth, reports from Packers camp don't seem too enthusiastic about Love and how he prepares himself, so I'm of the mind that if by year 3 you are not ready to play, you are very likely never going to be ready to play and very likely there are some underlying limitations that are showing themselves(work ethic, drive, physical or mental processing limitations, etc.)

 

But yeah... just like every other position in football there are risks in drafting a QB high and there is a chance he will bust. That should NOT stop us from drafting one when we don't have one in the building right now. Just like it doesn't stop you from drafting an EDGE player in R1 or a WR in R1 or an OT in R1, even though they have about the same chance to bust as a QB. 

 

Going into the 2020 offseason, it was my preference that we find a way to emulate the Chiefs strategy with Mahomes. Have a veteran starter, draft a guy to sit for a year, and see how it goes. That doesn't guarantee that your young guy is successful, you still have to draft the right guy.

 

So it doesn't really matter whether Love works out for the Packers or not. You can't hit if you don't swing.

 

Now I understand what the Colts have done at QB. But pointing out young QBs who don't succeed doesn't vindicate the idea that we shouldn't be worried about finding the next franchise level guy for our team. 

[RollerColt]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Going into the 2020 offseason, it was my preference that we find a way to emulate the Chiefs strategy with Mahomes. Have a veteran starter, draft a guy to sit for a year, and see how it goes. That doesn't guarantee that your young guy is successful, you still have to draft the right guy.

 

So it doesn't really matter whether Love works out for the Packers or not. You can't hit if you don't swing.

 

Now I understand what the Colts have done at QB. But pointing out young QBs who don't succeed doesn't vindicate the idea that we shouldn't be worried about finding the next franchise level guy for our team. 

Agreed. If Ballard ends up really liking a QB in this draft, and we have the opportunity to get him, then we absolutely should try and draft that kid. Even if Ryan is still with us for another couple of years. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Not sure what made the OP start this thread lol. Love was draftees into a bad position. Packers never should of drafted a QB yet. It’s no fault of his own he got drafted there. They are basically x going zoo have to trade him.  He is sin his third year and missing out on proving himself and making money. He should be getting paid after this season and won’t.

[Nickster]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

I mean... that's straight up not true. There are plenty of total busts at other positions high in the draft. The fact that teams don't tolerate QBs playing at the level of many total busts at other positions that are allowed to play is actually a point against that argument. QBs are just SO MUCH MORE valuable than any other positions that noone tolerates bad/below average players there. 

 

Examples - Solomon Thomas, Leonard Fournette, John Ross, Ereck Flowers, Dante Fowler, Kevin White, Clelin Ferrell, Devin Bush, Jeff Okudah, CJ Henderson... 

 

Those are all players whose level of play would be considered total bust if QBs played at the same level, no matter whether they continued to receive chances or not at their original positions... and some of them have continued to receive chances for years and years. Teams just would never stick with a QB playing at that level because the position is much more valuable and impacts winning(and losing) this much more, not because those players are any less of busts. 

 

And again - on the other side of the spectrum - the payoff on hitting on a QB is much higher, too. 

Leonard Fournette is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.  He had 120 combined yds in the SB.  He had 1200 yds and 10TDs for one of the top teams in the league last season.  He's a good player now.  No where near 4th pick but a solid NFL starter on a championship level team.  

 

Ross has been injury plagued and I think that should be accounted for.  

 

Clowney is another example IMO that I don't think you see too often in QBs.   Definite disappointment in pass rush as first pick, a really good, valuable NFL player.

 

The number of QBs IMO who are high draft choices who are basically worthless in the NFL is seemingly higher at these positions.  I ain't going to do a big study of it.  I may be wrong. But off the top of my head I can think several highpicks that were completely worthless at QB off the top of my head and only notable ones like Bosworth and Mandarich who were worthless other than injury or conduct.  To me Injury and conduct is different.

 

It's just anecdotal though. You could be right.  

 

 

 

[Superman]

48 minutes ago, Nickster said:

He's a good player now.  No where near 4th pick but a solid NFL starter on a championship level team.

 

He's a middle class RB who is pretty replaceable, and who shares time with other players at the same position. There is no comp for this at the QB position. At QB, either you're a franchise level guy who takes every snap, or your team is actively trying to find your replacement. 

[Nickster]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He's a middle class RB who is pretty replaceable, and who shares time with other players at the same position. There is no comp for this at the QB position. At QB, either you're a franchise level guy who takes every snap, or your team is actively trying to find your replacement. 

That's my point.   Good/Decent/Serviceable/ near replacement  are semantics that really don't have anything to do with the point.   He's a legit NFL starter.  He had amost 1700 yds from scrimmage on 19 with the Jag bags.  He's not the superstar he was drafted to be, but he's a good player. 

 

Heath Shuler on the other hand is still really good looking and a good analyst, but was mammaries on a boar hog as a player in The League.  But he's still really, really good looking.  (I know he was only a 22 pick now, thought he was higher, but I think this sentence is funny.)

Akili Smith, JeMarcus Russell, Josh ROsen, Sam Darnold

 

The list of basically worthless high pick QBS who are worthless not as a result of injury or conduct  is long and indistinguished. 

[Myles]

1 hour ago, TaylorTheStudMuffin said:

Not sure what made the OP start this thread lol. Love was draftees into a bad position. Packers never should of drafted a QB yet. It’s no fault of his own he got drafted there. They are basically x going zoo have to trade him.  He is sin his third year and missing out on proving himself and making money. He should be getting paid after this season and won’t.

I don't blame the Packers for Love's situation.   The Packers were being prepared in case Rodgers bolted.   They did a similar thing when they drafted Rodgers.  

I also do not feel sorry for Love.  He should be preparing to start similar to how many other back up QB's have.   He's made 

$8 million in 2 seasons, so he will be fine.  

[Myles]

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I will go most recent, here are QB's drafted in the top 10 since the 2014 draft:

 

2014

Blake Bortles #3 - not a franchise QB

 

2015

Winston #1 - not a franchise QB

Mariota #2 - not a franchise QB

 

2016

Goff #1 - not a franchise QB

Wentz #2 - not a franchise QB

 

2017

Trubisky #2 - not a franchise QB

Mahomes #10 - Franchise QB

 

2018 

Mayfield #1 - not a franchise QB

Darnold #3 - not a franchise QB

Allen #7 - Franchise QB

Rosen #10 - not a franchise QB, is he still even in the league?

 

2019

Murray #1 - not a franchise QB, good but not Franchise.

Jones #6 - not a franchise QB

 

2020

Burrow #1 - Franchise QB

Tua #5 - not a franchise QB

Herbert #6 - Franchise QB

 

2021

Lawrence #1 - bad rookie season but maybe??

Wilson #2 - not a franchise QB, don't see it at all.

Lance #3 - I don't see him as a franchise QB, but he hasn't played much.

 

19 QB's have been taken in the Top 10 since the 2014 draft and only 4 we can say for certian are franchise QB's = Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, and Herbert. That is 8 drafts worth! The rest of those QB's are pretty much MEH. I will hold out on Lawrence for a year because I think he could be a franchise QB but that isn't a given. Jordan Love was drafted 26th in the 2020 draft so 25 teams passed on him and he is bad IMO.

 

So 4 QB's out of 19 that were drafted Top 10 since 2014 = a 21% hit rate on getting someone that is a franchise/spectacular QB. That is pretty low. A team has to be really lucky to get a franchise QB because I just gave a huge sample size where a team won't drafting one in the Top 10. 

Odds are it will be a swing and a miss and put the franchise in the hole for a few seasons.  Give up a bunch of draft capital and suck for 3 seasons and have to try again.   Personally I would rather either draft a QB in the upper teens/lower 20's and let him sit and see what you have behind a veteran QB like Ryan.   

[Four2itus]

4 hours ago, Myles said:

For every one of those, there were unsuccessful trade ups.   Just ask the Jets and Bears.

True

[Four2itus]

I am so done trying to discuss the logic I believe in regarding how and when to go for a QB. I will say, however, that I agree with the current franchises approach. 

[stitches]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Going into the 2020 offseason, it was my preference that we find a way to emulate the Chiefs strategy with Mahomes. Have a veteran starter, draft a guy to sit for a year, and see how it goes. That doesn't guarantee that your young guy is successful, you still have to draft the right guy.

 

So it doesn't really matter whether Love works out for the Packers or not. You can't hit if you don't swing.

 

Now I understand what the Colts have done at QB. But pointing out young QBs who don't succeed doesn't vindicate the idea that we shouldn't be worried about finding the next franchise level guy for our team. 

Yeah, I've never been against having a vet starter to mentor our QB of the future. In fact I think it's a good thing. I thought it was the best option in 2020 too - get Rivers, get future at QB for Rivers to mentor. I thought the same was the best course of action this year too - get Ryan, get a youngster to mentor. Now, this year specifically was especially bad QB wise so I understood our FO not going for a QB if they didn't believe in any of them. But I will think the same would be the best strategy next year again - keep Ryan and draft our guy of the future in the draft, which at least at this point seems to be a very strong QB draft. We will see how it will ultimately pan out in the future. 

[Superman]

57 minutes ago, Nickster said:

That's my point.   Good/Decent/Serviceable/ near replacement  are semantics that really don't have anything to do with the point.   He's a legit NFL starter.  He had amost 1700 yds from scrimmage on 19 with the Jag bags.  He's not the superstar he was drafted to be, but he's a good player. 

 

Maybe we're missing each other. My point is that, unlike QB, you can be serviceable (or whatever other designation you want to apply), and still have a role on the team. At QB, either you're the guy or you're not. There is no timeshare, no split duties, there's no such thing as a short yardage QB, or a pass rush specialist QB... if he isn't good at certain throws, you can't move him to a less demanding position like you would if your LT isn't developing as a pass blocker. You can salvage some production from a disappointing first round player at every other position, but if your first round QB isn't good enough, you have to replace him.

 

Would you call Fournette a bust? Probably not. But if you apply his career trajectory to a QB taken at #4, that QB would be considered a bust. Sam Darnold, for instance. 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

Leonard Fournette is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.  He had 120 combined yds in the SB.  He had 1200 yds and 10TDs for one of the top teams in the league last season.  He's a good player now.  No where near 4th pick but a solid NFL starter on a championship level team.  

That's the thing Leonard Fournette level performance in the first 2-3 years would never get the chance to have the equivalent of 120 yards in a SB on year 4... he would be out of the league or relegated to bench roles. Fournette was horrible on his rookie contract. He got cut! Imagine a QB getting cut. How bad would he have to be? Even Darnold didn't get cut and returned actual positive value for his team when they traded him. Mariota, Winston, Wentz, Mayfield ... none of them got cut and most of them actually returned positive value for their teams even after everyone thought they were busts. 

 

That's another thing that people underestimate when talking about drafting a QB... QBs amazingly retain TONS of value even after being horrible. We gave up a 1st and a 3d for the worst QB in the league the previous season... and then managed to get a 2nd and a 3d after he again % the bed in the win and you're in games. Jets got a 2nd and 4th for Darnold. Rosen returned a second after Arizona gave up on him after just one year. 

 

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

 

Ross has been injury plagued and I think that should be accounted for.  

Same can be said about some QBs too... 

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

 

Clowney is another example IMO that I don't think you see too often in QBs.   Definite disappointment in pass rush as first pick, a really good, valuable NFL player.

I personally don't count Clowney as a collosal bust. Now, he is not the world beater he was drafted to be and his draft position would suggest he should have been, but for him specifically I think he's been serviceable player from the beginning and has never been straight bad. 

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

The number of QBs IMO who are high draft choices who are basically worthless in the NFL is seemingly higher at these positions.  I ain't going to do a big study of it.  I may be wrong. But off the top of my head I can think several highpicks that were completely worthless at QB off the top of my head and only notable ones like Bosworth and Mandarich who were worthless other than injury or conduct.  To me Injury and conduct is different.

 

It's just anecdotal though. You could be right.  

They are "worthless" because of the specifics of the position, not because they are any worse than regular busts at other positions. Just the demands on the QB position are MUCH HIGHER. Because the position has such an outsized impact on winning. Let me put it like this - an average QB has about 1.5-1.8 WAR according to PFF. Players like Darius Leonard and Quenton Nelson have WAR of about 0.5 every year. Having a QB at 0 WAR is equivalent of having 3-4 bad players at other positions. Now you can handle one of them and work around it, but if you are told  - you must have ALL 4 of them or you must replace them all. The decision becomes really easy - you replace them... but no 4 players come in a package like that. QBs are pretty much the equivalent of a package of 4 players worth of impact on a game. That's why noone is happy with having  the Darnolds or Mayfields of Wentz' or Mariotas or Winstons of the world. It's just way too hard to win at the highest level and compensate for their below average play, even if they are the definition of "serviceable". 

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Maybe we're missing each other. My point is that, unlike QB, you can be serviceable (or whatever other designation you want to apply), and still have a role on the team. At QB, either you're the guy or you're not. There is no timeshare, no split duties, there's no such thing as a short yardage QB, or a pass rush specialist QB... if he isn't good at certain throws, you can't move him to a less demanding position like you would if your LT isn't developing as a pass blocker. You can salvage some production from a disappointing first round player at every other position, but if your first round QB isn't good enough, you have to replace him.

 

Would you call Fournette a bust? Probably not. But if you apply his career trajectory to a QB taken at #4, that QB would be considered a bust. Sam Darnold, for instance. 

No we are making the same point I believe.   No I am trying to come up with a list of high drafted position players who were complete busts (except for injury or behavior) other than the Boz and Tony Mandarich.  

I ain't coming up with nothing.

 

I bet I could name 25 QBs of the top of my head highly drafted who were complete and utter busts. 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Maybe we're missing each other. My point is that, unlike QB, you can be serviceable (or whatever other designation you want to apply), and still have a role on the team. At QB, either you're the guy or you're not. There is no timeshare, no split duties, there's no such thing as a short yardage QB, or a pass rush specialist QB... if he isn't good at certain throws, you can't move him to a less demanding position like you would if your LT isn't developing as a pass blocker. You can salvage some production from a disappointing first round player at every other position, but if your first round QB isn't good enough, you have to replace him.

 

Would you call Fournette a bust? Probably not. But if you apply his career trajectory to a QB taken at #4, that QB would be considered a bust. Sam Darnold, for instance. 

IMO it's about impact on the game. By some WAR metrics QBs have about 4-5 times the impact of most other positions. What people call serviceable is really a below average player. You can put them on the field and work around their weaknesses. Because they are a single player with the impact of a single non-QB player. The equivalent impact-wise of having a below average QB is if you have a package of 4-5 players that are all below average... but you must either play them all or you must get rid off them. The decision in this case would be easy - you get rid off them, but no groups of non-QB players come in packages like that so teams can pick and choose where they can tolerate weaknesses ... and they do tolerate them... at pretty much every single position in the game except for QB. 

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's the thing Leonard Fournette level performance in the first 2-3 years would never get the chance to have the equivalent of 120 yards in a SB on year 4... he would be out of the league or relegated to bench roles. Fournette was horrible on his rookie contract. He got cut! Imagine a QB getting cut. How bad would he have to be? Even Darnold didn't get cut and returned actual positive value for his team when they traded him. Mariota, Winston, Wentz, Mayfield ... none of them got cut and most of them actually returned positive value for their teams even after everyone thought they were busts. 

 

That's another thing that people underestimate when talking about drafting a QB... QBs amazingly retain TONS of value even after being horrible. We gave up a 1st and a 3d for the worst QB in the league the previous season... and then managed to get a 2nd and a 3d after he again % the bed in the win and you're in games. Jets got a 2nd and 4th for Darnold. Rosen returned a second after Arizona gave up on him after just one year. 

 

Same can be said about some QBs too... 

I personally don't count Clowney as a collosal bust. Now, he is not the world beater he was drafted to be and his draft position would suggest he should have been, but for him specifically I think he's been serviceable player from the beginning and has never been straight bad. 

They are "worthless" because of the specifics of the position, not because they are any worse than regular busts at other positions. Just the demands on the QB position are MUCH HIGHER. Because the position has such an outsized impact on winning. Let me put it like this - an average QB has about 1.5-1.8 WAR according to PFF. Players like Darius Leonard and Quenton Nelson have WAR of about 0.5 every year. Having a QB at 0 WAR is equivalent of having 3-4 bad players at other positions. Now you can handle one of them and work around it, but if you are told  - you must have ALL 4 of them or you must replace them all. The decision becomes really easy - you replace them... but no 4 players come in a package like that. QBs are pretty much the equivalent of a package of 4 players worth of impact on a game. That's why noone is happy with having  the Darnolds or Mayfields of Wentz' or Mariotas or Winstons of the world. It's just way too hard to win at the highest level and compensate for their below average play, even if they are the definition of "serviceable". 

 

Fournette was cut by a bad franchise that was resetting itself.  He had a great year in 2019.  he wasn't cut because of performance.  RBs don't have much value.  

 

I am not sure we are understanding each other.

 

I thought you were saying that highly drafted QBs don't bust at a higher rate than highly drafted Positions players.  To me that is demonstrably false but I guess it depends on your definition of bust.  To me a bust is a guy that adds no value.  A guy like Alex Smith is a guy like Clowney.  Good.  Not a bust.  But not really worth the 1st pick in the draft. 

To me Sam Darnold is a bust no matter how much teams pay him.  He adds no value, but disappointing (to some extent) position players like Clowney and Fournette do add value to their teams.   Clowney has been a good player, not a bust.  But  was a disappointment to Texans presumably with the sack totals.  Now to me no team should EVER draft a RB that high in today's game which is another story, but the dude was pretty much a stud the year before he was waived. 

 

I totally consider Darnold a bust at this point no matter how many teams take a chance or how much they pay him. 

[Myles]

6 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Fournette was cut by a bad franchise that was resetting itself.  He had a great year in 2019.  he wasn't cut because of performance.  RBs don't have much value.  

 

I am not sure we are understanding each other.

 

I thought you were saying that highly drafted QBs don't bust at a higher rate than highly drafted Positions players.  To me that is demonstrably false but I guess it depends on your definition of bust.  To me a bust is a guy that adds no value.  A guy like Alex Smith is a guy like Clowney.  Good.  Not a bust.  But not really worth the 1st pick in the draft. 

To me Sam Darnold is a bust no matter how much teams pay him.  He adds no value, but disappointing (to some extent) position players like Clowney and Fournette do add value to their teams.   Clowney has been a good player, not a bust.  But  was a disappointment to Texans presumably with the sack totals.  Now to me no team should EVER draft a RB that high in today's game which is another story, but the dude was pretty much a stud the year before he was waived. 

 

I totally consider Darnold a bust at this point no matter how many teams take a chance or how much they pay him. 

I don't consider Darnold a bust yet.  He was drafted by the Jets and played for that bad team for 3 seasons.  

He is definitely leaning towards bust.

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

I don't consider Darnold a bust yet.  He was drafted by the Jets and played for that bad team for 3 seasons.  

He is definitely leaning towards bust.

Well he's on that trajectory.  I mean he was traded for a 4th round pick and now Carolina has replaced him with Mayfield.   If he ain't a bust yet he's certainly on the bubble.  Just substitute Josh Rosen for my Darnold in my comment then. 

[Myles]

25 minutes ago, Nickster said:

No we are making the same point I believe.   No I am trying to come up with a list of high drafted position players who were complete busts (except for injury or behavior) other than the Boz and Tony Mandarich.  

I ain't coming up with nothing.

 

I bet I could name 25 QBs of the top of my head highly drafted who were complete and utter busts. 

I'd say:

Quentin Coryatt - 2nd overall pick in the draft

Trev Alberts - 5th pick

Steve Emtman - 1st overall pick.  

 

 

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, stitches said:

IMO it's about impact on the game. By some WAR metrics QBs have about 4-5 times the impact of most other positions. What people call serviceable is really a below average player. You can put them on the field and work around their weaknesses. Because they are a single player with the impact of a single non-QB player. The equivalent impact-wise of having a below average QB is if you have a package of 4-5 players that are all below average... but you must either play them all or you must get rid off them. The decision in this case would be easy - you get rid off them, but no groups of non-QB players come in packages like that so teams can pick and choose where they can tolerate weaknesses ... and they do tolerate them... at pretty much every single position in the game except for QB. 

 

For sure. It's obvious, for several reasons, why QB is so valued, and why 'serviceable but not great' QB isn't really a thing anymore.

 

But when it comes to acquiring your guy, it makes sense that a team would be measured in their approach. The bust rate is high, and the cost is steep, so don't go all in until you feel really strongly about a guy. If you want to use a Day 2 pick and see if you get a hit, fine. But giving up multiple firsts for one player is a franchise altering investment, and when you're wrong -- which is the most likely outcome -- it's crippling. 

 

So as fans, we might identify our favorite guy each year, and say 'go get him!' But the staff might determine that no one meets their standard, so they're not interested. There's probably space between those two extremes, but ultimately, QB who isn't good enough is just as bad as a bad QB. There's very little grey area here.

[PRnum1]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Yeah, I've never been against having a vet starter to mentor our QB of the future. In fact I think it's a good thing. I thought it was the best option in 2020 too - get Rivers, get future at QB for Rivers to mentor. I thought the same was the best course of action this year too - get Ryan, get a youngster to mentor. Now, this year specifically was especially bad QB wise so I understood our FO not going for a QB if they didn't believe in any of them. But I will think the same would be the best strategy next year again - keep Ryan and draft our guy of the future in the draft, which at least at this point seems to be a very strong QB draft. We will see how it will ultimately pan out in the future. 

I know its only one preseason game, but so far Malik Willis, Desmond Ridder and Pickett for the steelers have looked pretty good.

 

My point is don't be discouraged by draftniks on a supposedly weak QB draft.

 

If Frank and Ballard see a guy they like, then go after them, draftniks be dammed.

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Smonroe said:

The point is - you have to keep trying.  Use that first pick next year, even if it’s a late pick.  
 

This is the perfect transition window with Matt as the starter for at least another year. 

Use our first round pick next year?    I strongly disagree.   We have a window with Matt Ryan.   It’s a small window, but it IS a window.    Next years first will go to putting a better team around Ryan.   
 

We will eventually draft our QB of the future.  But I don’t believe that time has come.  Not yet.  

[w87r]

5 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

If Frank and Ballard see a guy they like, then go after them, draftniks be dammed.

They will.

[stitches]

22 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

I know its only one preseason game, but so far Malik Willis, Desmond Ridder and Pickett for the steelers have looked pretty good.

 

My point is don't be discouraged by draftniks on a supposedly weak QB draft.

 

If Frank and Ballard see a guy they like, then go after them, draftniks be dammed.

Oh I liked some of them and I liked them better than the league obviously liked them, but I'm not QB expert so I defer to what the consensus seemed to have been. 

 

But yah - I agree - If Ballard and Reich love a guy, they should go get him. 

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, shasta519 said:

MLF even said the three INTs against SF weren't even his fault...two were drops and the other had two WRs running the wrong route, which happens in PS with fringe roster players.

 

We have no idea what would have become of Love if the Colts drafted him. At this point, he's never going to be a Colt so it doesn't really matter.

 

But Love is just one QB. What some fans here really want is to draft and develop a QB.

We all want the Colts to draft and develop a quarterback.   Where we disagree is when. 
 

Some want it next year.   Others would prefer we wait.   That’s the on-going debate. 

[Nickster]

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'd say:

Quentin Coryatt - 2nd overall pick in the draft

Trev Alberts - 5th pick

Steve Emtman - 1st overall pick.  

 

 

See I don't count Emtman.  He was a stud before the career ender.  That's why I don't count someone like RG3 a the qb.

 

Man Coryatt was a good player who got signed to a major contract after his rookie contract by offered by Jax and matched by Indy.  He had his best year in the AFC championship year.  He then had a devastating pec injury and couldn't really play anymore.  Not a bust.  Didn't make the pro bowl, but must've been right there several seasons.  The money he was offered by two at the time good teams shows he was a really good player.

 

Alberts was injury riddled.  It's hard to judge a career like that. I could see him being considered a performance bust, but he never really had a chance.  Like I said for me at both QB and position players in this discussion, I'm disregarding injury and behavior busts.  To me that's different and usually unpredictable.  Like Ki-Jana Carter for example.  Sure he was an injury bust but I have a hard time saying he was a bad draft for the Bengals.  He was awesome at PSU.  On 2nd thought be was a Bengals draft pick so probably would have sucked anyway.

[shasta519]

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Use our first round pick next year?    I strongly disagree.   We have a window with Matt Ryan.   It’s a small window, but it IS a window.    Next years first will go to putting a better team around Ryan.   
 

We will eventually draft our QB of the future.  But I don’t believe that time has come.  Not yet.  

 

I have seen a lot of people say "well, we can just our 1st next year on a QB." But I would argue it's going to sting even more to use next year's 1st round pick (plus) to get a QB when that is the second year of this current window. Unless this team implodes (it won't), next season will be about maximizing the window...and drafting a QB with your 1st round pick doesn't really fit that approach.

 

Plus, they have to pay Nelson and Pitt/JT will be eligible for new contracts. Oke is a FA. Yannick is a FA. I don't think they will be able to use much cap space on outside moves, so that 1st round pick suddenly becomes their best chance to add impact talent.

[Myles]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

 

Man Coryatt was a good player who got signed to a major contract after his rookie contract by offered by Jax and matched by Indy.  He had his best year in the AFC championship year.  He then had a devastating pec injury and couldn't really play anymore.  Not a bust.  Didn't make the pro bowl, but must've been right there several seasons.  The money he was offered by two at the time good teams shows he was a really good player.

 

Alberts was injury riddled.  It's hard to judge a career like that. I could see him being considered a performance bust, but he never really had a chance.  Like I said for me at both QB and position players in this discussion, I'm disregarding injury and behavior busts.  To me that's different and usually unpredictable.  Like Ki-Jana Carter for example.  Sure he was an injury bust but I have a hard time saying he was a bad draft for the Bengals.  He was awesome at PSU.  On 2nd thought be was a Bengals draft pick so probably would have sucked anyway.

Coryatt didn't even come close to living up to the 2nd pick in the 1st round.   Not even a career worthy of a 3rd round pick.   Just over 5 tackles a game.  1 sack every 9 games.

 

78 games, 441 tackles, 8.5 sacks, three interceptions, six forced fumbles, seven fumble recoveries

 

Alberts was an injury/performance bust.  In his 1st season he only played 5 games and had 5 total tackles.   In his second season he started 15 games but only had 25 tackles and 2 sacks.  

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

Coryatt didn't even come close to living up to the 2nd pick in the 1st round.   Not even a career worthy of a 3rd round pick.   Just over 5 tackles a game.  1 sack every 9 games.

 

78 games, 441 tackles, 8.5 sacks, three interceptions, six forced fumbles, seven fumble recoveries

 

Alberts was an injury/performance bust.  In his 1st season he only played 5 games and had 5 total tackles.   In his second season he started 15 games but only had 25 tackles and 2 sacks.  

Coryatt was an ILB.  He was really good from 93-95 before he got injured.  Before 1996 season, Jax offered him a 17.5 million dollar contract that the Colts matched. That was a ton in 1996.

 

He pulled his left pec and then literally had his right pec pulled OFF THE BONE.  He was a really good player before this.  Just agree to disagree that he was a bust.  He was pretty much a stud, and was going to be paid like one by at least two good teams. 

 

Albert was busty, but never really played consistently. 

[PRnum1]

31 minutes ago, stitches said:

Oh I liked some of them and I liked them better than the league obviously liked them, but I'm not QB expert so I defer to what the consensus seemed to have been. 

 

But yah - I agree - If Ballard and Reich love a guy, they should go get him. 

When I watched the preseason games, I expected Ridder and Willis to look completely overmatched.  I didn't see Pickett although I heard he threw the game winning TD to Pickens.

 

I was pleasantly surprised when they looked pretty good.  To me they looked like they had all the basic skills to be good QBs plus both were mobile.

 

I realize they are raw and need work, but the basic talent was there.  Heck, Colts fans have probably seen alot more of Ridder than me since he played at Cincy.

 

To me, to go after Willis or Ridder for a 3rd pick was a risk well worth taking.  If it doesn't work, we just spent a 3rd rounder.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, PRnum1 said:

When I watched the preseason games, I expected Ridder and Willis to look completely overmatched.  I didn't see Pickett although I heard he threw the game winning TD to Pickens.

 

I was pleasantly surprised when they looked pretty good.  To me they looked like they had all the basic skills to be good QBs plus both were mobile.

 

I realize they are raw and need work, but the basic talent was there.  Heck, Colts fans have probably seen alot more of Ridder than me since he played at Cincy.

 

To me, to go after Willis or Ridder for a 3rd pick was a risk well worth taking.  If it doesn't work, we just spent a 3rd rounder.

 

I liked Ridder, still do, but I have several nitpicks with his play in that preseason game. Mostly related to accuracy and decision making. He made a terrible throw that got picked, but was waived off due to penalty (I think it was roughing, and it was a borderline call). I think he had a pretty rough film review session following the game.

 

But I agree, he wasn't overmatched, he has the tools and the poise, he's super competitive. I think some of his production needs to be washed, those scrambles would probably be stopped in a real game, either with gameplan or more aggressive defensive play. 

 

I'll be watching him very closely.

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

When I watched the preseason games, I expected Ridder and Willis to look completely overmatched.  I didn't see Pickett although I heard he threw the game winning TD to Pickens.

 

I was pleasantly surprised when they looked pretty good.  To me they looked like they had all the basic skills to be good QBs plus both were mobile.

 

I realize they are raw and need work, but the basic talent was there.  Heck, Colts fans have probably seen alot more of Ridder than me since he played at Cincy.

 

To me, to go after Willis or Ridder for a 3rd pick was a risk well worth taking.  If it doesn't work, we just spent a 3rd rounder.

Willis looked scintillating at times... but he also got benched for not throwing a pass that he should have thrown within the offense and instead running for 17 yards.  

 

Didn't watch Ridder and Pickens. Heard both did well. 

[NewColtsFan]

29 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I have seen a lot of people say "well, we can just our 1st next year on a QB." But I would argue it's going to sting even more to use next year's 1st round pick (plus) to get a QB when that is the second year of this current window. Unless this team implodes (it won't), next season will be about maximizing the window...and drafting a QB with your 1st round pick doesn't really fit that approach.

 

Plus, they have to pay Nelson and Pitt/JT will be eligible for new contracts. Oke is a FA. Yannick is a FA. I don't think they will be able to use much cap space on outside moves, so that 1st round pick suddenly becomes their best chance to add impact talent.

Thank you.    You elaborated better than I have.   I think you explained yourself clearly and logically.   It may not change all hearts and minds but I hope you’ll convince most!  
 

Really appreciate your post!   Don’t be surprised if I reference this post for the next 8 months!    

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

16 minutes ago, stitches said:

Willis looked scintillating at times... but he also got benched for not throwing a pass that he should have thrown within the offense and instead running for 17 yards.  

 

Didn't watch Ridder and Pickens. Heard both did well. 

So I saw a theory that they benched Willis because he was looking so good they didn’t want the QB controversy stuff to start.  All the young QB that got drafted this past spring actually looked quite nice. 
 

I wonder seeing the improvement of Eghlinger from last preseason to this preseason if it’s possible for him to improve enough to to be Ryan’s successor. I don’t think he has enough physical tools but it’s a good sign with no playing time he has improved that much.

[w87r]

46 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

We all want the Colts to draft and develop a quarterback.   Where we disagree is when. 
 

Some want it next year.   Others would prefer we wait.   That’s the on-going debate. 

And what we want doesn't matter.

 

They will get their guy when they find the 1 they want, at a spot that is feasible to a competing team to not jeopardize their present.

 

 

**Hopefully Wentz meets his 2nd RD conditions. 

 

I could see a scenario next year where we make a move for QB of future.

 

1. Trading up with our 1st and whatever else needed. Should have some capital

2. Using our 1st for immediate need, and then trading back up into late 1st with our 2nd, (**imagine WAS will be higher, so we keep that one), and whatever else needed. (+2024 2nd)

3. Stay put and draft one. (Hopefully we're drafting 32nd) 1st-3rd nothing below 3rd round.

 

 

If it were to be the above scenario's, we would need to be more active in FA early.

 

I do think Ryan will be here for 3-4years, so I could see it could be moved out to 2024 too.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

If you don't have at least a franchise QB(goal is a elite QB) in this league your toast or at the minimum it's a uphill struggle to compete with solid teams with better QB play than you have. 

 

You do whatever you can to get in position to draft a potential elite QB, whatever you can.....or you'll find yourself doing what the colts have done lately, which is hoping what some other team discards and no longer wants will lead you to the promise land.